Posts
"High Spirits" will be on 1360, wsai, in Cincinnati this evening at eight pm.
Its premier episode is tonight, Sunday, July 30, at eight pm. We urge you to call in this evening, with any question regarding spirituality, religion, philosophy, psychology, cults, God, nature, and any related subject.
The local number is 749-1360, and the ld number is: 877-345-3779.
This is an easy, fun, quick, and free way to help both yourself and the community.
Here, for your convenience, are the instructions for audiostreaming our show this evening:
Go www.1360wsai.com
There is a link that says "listen live" click on that.
The next page you go to will have a link that says "listen now."
Click on that and you should be good to go.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Heal Your Life: Begin Now!
You have been wounded, my friend, by religious fools who understand nothing about the heavenly Father of Love. If I were in your position, I would begin healing recovery by continually "feeding" myself positive spiritual literature. If you are interested, we do have a couple of our books on cd. Just say the word, and send us your snailmail (geographic, ground) address, and we will be happy to send you a copy.
Beyond that, you need to reject all thoughts of the hateful god of mythology and illusion. You need to invite the true God into your heart. This is not done by ceremony or formal prayer. It is done by loving yourself and others. So, do whatever you can for others, and for your own happiness. God is Love, and wants for us all to be as happy as possible.
He does not want us to hurt ourselves or others, through selfishness, but He does want us all to be as happy as we can be. So, give yourself little treats during the day; give yourself plenty of rest, take a nap, go to the gym, eat something delicious, listen to tv or radio, listen to birdsong. Each time that you enjoy something, thank God, for He is the Source of all goodness.
Also, thank the God of Love for a new day, for sunshine, for rain, for both are beautiful in their own way. Thank God, as Love, for all your loved ones, and shower them with expressions of Love. If they think that this is odd, just tell them that you have discovered that God is Love, and that God contains none of the brutality, cruelty, and other messed-up mind-diseases of people.
Perhaps most importantly of all, keep your mind occupied. Always stay busy with "work therapy." Work in whatever way you can to aid the world; if you work for others, to improve their lives, this will be the work of God in the world.
If you are seeking your interior natural talents, abilities, or skills, I could help you. Just send me your birth-date, birth-place, and the minute that you were born, and I will do some research for you.
*******
Beyond that, you need to reject all thoughts of the hateful god of mythology and illusion. You need to invite the true God into your heart. This is not done by ceremony or formal prayer. It is done by loving yourself and others. So, do whatever you can for others, and for your own happiness. God is Love, and wants for us all to be as happy as possible.
He does not want us to hurt ourselves or others, through selfishness, but He does want us all to be as happy as we can be. So, give yourself little treats during the day; give yourself plenty of rest, take a nap, go to the gym, eat something delicious, listen to tv or radio, listen to birdsong. Each time that you enjoy something, thank God, for He is the Source of all goodness.
Also, thank the God of Love for a new day, for sunshine, for rain, for both are beautiful in their own way. Thank God, as Love, for all your loved ones, and shower them with expressions of Love. If they think that this is odd, just tell them that you have discovered that God is Love, and that God contains none of the brutality, cruelty, and other messed-up mind-diseases of people.
Perhaps most importantly of all, keep your mind occupied. Always stay busy with "work therapy." Work in whatever way you can to aid the world; if you work for others, to improve their lives, this will be the work of God in the world.
If you are seeking your interior natural talents, abilities, or skills, I could help you. Just send me your birth-date, birth-place, and the minute that you were born, and I will do some research for you.
*******
Time and Worldmind
When we spoke about Brahman and "potential," we were referring specifically to that aspect of Brahman called sunyata. For it is from this "Mindvoid" that all things emerge, and so, we think of the "light of the void" as referring not only to voidmind, stillmind, or crystalmind, but also to the potential of the Mind to dream anything. This is, of course, infinite and unlimited potential. It is the "uncarved block" of the homely Taoist parable, from which you can carve anything. So, Brahman, as the active Dreamermind, is not only or exclusively potential, but is also the manifest cosmos.
Einstein, when asked about time, said it existed to prevent everything's occurring at once. Time is an m-world creation; for in purest Mind, there is no reason to hypothesize its necessity. In fact, mystics such as Jesus say, from one perspective, that the Mind, in Itself, enjoys a "timeless" existence. This is the life of the "eternal now," in which there is no timeflow. This "now" simply is; it does not "go" anywhere, and it is not "headed" towards the future, and does not emerge from the past. It is outside of time, and time-measurement, altogether. ("Measure shares a root with "matter," and so, is a product of the m-world.)
What is done in this extraordinary altered state, several mystics have stated, is "done as unto the Lord," for it is the "Lord" Itself performing the highly focused act, outside of time. In this sweet altered state, time does not "fly." It simply does not exist.
This awareness changes the mystic in some very important ways, but it does not alter the collective or consensual reality. So, with the timeless mystic, although she attains clarity and focus, she still lives in the "sea of time" surrounding her. Her bioprocesses, including aging, continue, although some desperate souls try to pretend that they can "master time itself." We can "master" subjective time, and time-usages, but not the consensual flow of time altogether. (That is desperation and its accompanying gullibility speaking.) For time arises from a very deep layer of the Unconscious, i.e., the collective. It is thus exactly like other consensualities, such as scientific law.
*******
Einstein, when asked about time, said it existed to prevent everything's occurring at once. Time is an m-world creation; for in purest Mind, there is no reason to hypothesize its necessity. In fact, mystics such as Jesus say, from one perspective, that the Mind, in Itself, enjoys a "timeless" existence. This is the life of the "eternal now," in which there is no timeflow. This "now" simply is; it does not "go" anywhere, and it is not "headed" towards the future, and does not emerge from the past. It is outside of time, and time-measurement, altogether. ("Measure shares a root with "matter," and so, is a product of the m-world.)
What is done in this extraordinary altered state, several mystics have stated, is "done as unto the Lord," for it is the "Lord" Itself performing the highly focused act, outside of time. In this sweet altered state, time does not "fly." It simply does not exist.
This awareness changes the mystic in some very important ways, but it does not alter the collective or consensual reality. So, with the timeless mystic, although she attains clarity and focus, she still lives in the "sea of time" surrounding her. Her bioprocesses, including aging, continue, although some desperate souls try to pretend that they can "master time itself." We can "master" subjective time, and time-usages, but not the consensual flow of time altogether. (That is desperation and its accompanying gullibility speaking.) For time arises from a very deep layer of the Unconscious, i.e., the collective. It is thus exactly like other consensualities, such as scientific law.
*******
Love's Helpful Expressions
In mystical life, we speak of the "minimal Love." This is Love given to the stranger, to all strangers, and so, it must lack the very personal nature of what is usually called "Love." This very widespread, indeed, universal, Love must be simple and capable of being "given" to all-- the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Since it must be unconditional, it must be given freely to all, and since it must be widespread, it cannot be very complicated.
So, we define this "minimal" Love as: Sincerely to wish the very best success and happiness even for the serial killer. It is also rather fervently to wish for her complete enlightenment in Love; it includes sincere hope for not only her enlightenment in Love, but also for happiness, tranquility, good friends, sufficient material comforts, a healthy mind and body, and several other components.
Mystics frankly do not concern themselves so much with the technical definition or the epistemology of the "good" as they do with the commonsense applications of well-wishing. For example, no mystic would ever wish the serial killer "do well" by killing more victims.
To wish someone well is to wish for them personal success, and what brings them happiness, bounded by goodness, kindness, service, genuine friendship, and other manifestations of Love. This blocks the possibility of wishing "well" for the serial killer in terms of more victims-- a bit of a perversity that would not even occur to the goodness-bound mystic.
While a mystic might choose not to become deeply entangled in the problems of a stranger, creating harm or danger to herself or her friends, if she sees an opportunity to aid any living, especially sentient, creature-- even an animal-- she will respond to the call of Love, and will give aid and assistance. This implies not parental responsibility for other adults, which is a mild pathology, but it does imply reactivity. When a woman is being raped in public, and fifty people look the other way, no mystic would ever be among the complacent and unresponsive. Some mystics might even choose to put themselves in danger to help the woman, although this is not a "law," but a matter of sensitivity of personal guidance (through conscience).
This is usually the case with strangers, about whom you might know little or nothing. The mystic is charged with loving even characters of incompetence and cruelty, such as the "shrub." And I can indeed love bush by wishing him enlightenment and awakening, and thus, the end to his otherwise terrible karma.
The enlightened, in caring, are always supremely cautious never to "parentize," or to love from the "interior parent," an unhealthy and false "love." So, we never take responsibility for the behaviors, actions, thoughts, or words of other adults. And we never try to impose our moral or ethical values upon others. We will teach and share when the opportunity arises, but we are not at all like the "parental" pastors, gurus, psychologists, and others who try to force or to control. Indeed, a core-teaching of the Way is that we must let go of all control. So, we do not encounter the problems of trying illegitimately to override the free choices of another. We can advise out of Love, we can even urge, but we do not believe in personal control.
This is not apathy. It is the simple recognition that every living being contains the same God or Love within them that the mystic has within her. And it is a personal and "inside job" for each to discover this, and to obey Love. Some today, some tomorrow, and some, a thousand years from now. But we relax in the knowing that each will find Love and enlightenment in her own proper time, and no one should be in a hurry. In loving the serial killer in this moment, the mystic loves the goodness (Love, God) deep within the killer, and is certain of the killer's ultimate enlightenment.
The mystic leans more towards the view that true Love includes aiding others to repair their lives in non-invasive, non-intrusive ways that do not involve over-influence, and that never involve control. Mystics do not view apathetically allowing a person to dig more deeply into a psychosis a valid Way of loving. So the mystic will listen, support as much as is morally possible, and discuss the issues non-judgmentally with the person who is so afflicted. She will always use kindness in abundance, and will remain sensitive, as noted, to the other's adulthood and sacred freedom to make whatever decision she chooses. But the concerned mystic does not practice complacency, indifference, or the monstrous idea of moral relativity ("Serial killing might be the best course for this person.") She rejects this nonsense, and knows that, all karma aside, it is her duty of Love, her obligation as a good person, to try to aid a person to find sanity-- and, if possible, move even towards enlightenment. This "accepting a serial killer as she is" as a definition of "Love" is either an excuse for lazy non-action at best; or, at worst, it is just bs and selfdelusion.
The recognition of decency, goodness, and kindness is never a matter of "superior" or "inferior." If God has given us a vision of Love as action, even remedial action, then we go as far as we can to implement it. As noted, we do not override the freedom of any adult to do this, but we make suggestions for improvement. Love calls us to do this; and Love tells us that whatever or whoever is right in front of us is our assignment or task from Love. At the moment, it is this article, for example.
This view-- that all values, without exception, are simply subjective and personal-- represents, to the moderate mystic, an extreme. For there are many subjective and personal characteristics of value-systems and value-judgments. The mystic does not want to impose, but she does believe that there are nevertheless truly harmful actions and helpful actions. More simply, there are true "good" and "bad" in the cosmos. This prevents the mystic from the slippery slide of moral relativity, wich says that "anything goes," and that a person is somehow "wrong" to conclude that certain actions are harmful.
But this is, in fact, how the mystic largely describes "good" and"evil": That which deliberately, voluntarily harms other living creatures, especially sentient ones, is "evil," and that which aids them is "good." Again, moral relativism seems to be more an excuse for non-action or non-response to people in need than it is a well-thought-out philosophy. It is a (false) defense for apathy, complacency, and even cruelty. It can also, btw, excuse or neglect as morally meaningful any behavior that you choose to justify. Those boobs called the "nazis" proved beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt that the human mind is capable of invalidly justifying or rationalizing any behavior at all. This is the important lesson that they gave us from history.
The caring person strives for elasticity, humility, and flexibility. She does not want to come across as a shallow, arrogant "know-it-all," which helps no one. But her flexibility is more that of plastic than that of water. For if you become "too liquid," you have no solid foundations for your own life or morality. You then become the inevitable victim of stronger personalities. You can be moderately open-minded without becoming value-free. This reminds me of the little joke: "If you are too open-minded, your brains might fall out." Of course, absence of ethics and morality has nothing to do with true open--mindedness. The mystic can remain open, and can respectfully listen to others, while still holding to her moral Center. When she is surrounded by neonazis, for example, she does not become a neonazi. when she is surrounded by cult-members, she does not lose perspective and fall into cult-thinking, losing her freedom.
In allowing any adult to be the person that she must be, and in allowing her to take her karmic tests, including confusion and ignorance, the mystic does not follow by falling into the delusions, and never the harmful behavior, of another. Her moral compass and gyroscope are made even firmer by challenge, and she loves best by shining her light of Love into another life. But again, it is emphasized, she does not coerce, force, push, manipulate, or interfere. She is never arrogant, or brazen, but shares Love with the attitude and comforting words of healing.
At times, as when the woman is being attacked in public, Love might require sacrifice. You might have to sacrifice comfort or convenience, or even personal safety, in the service of Love. (But you never sacrifice the safety of others, for this is not within your rights.) "Sacrifice" arises from two Latin words meaning "to make holy." So, the mystic "makes her life holy" by every act of Love; and her every thought of Love is a "prayer," while her actions of Love are her worship; her cathedral is the cosmos, ordinary life among imperfect human beings.
The mystic uses her mind, a gift from Mind, to determine what Love asks (or, more rarely, demands) from her. Then, she answers the call according to her capacities and limitations, avoiding perfectionism. For most people, "Love" is like the Supreme Court's definition of obscenity: They cannot clearly define it intellectually, but they know Love when they see it, or feel it. The mystic believes that Love is the Source of our Love-definitions and -actions. Following her own interior and subjective Tao honestly, she knows when to act, and what to do, in response to the guidance of Love. And Love is the Source of all her spiritual behavior. For her, this solves the problem of epistemology.
As a simple pattern of thoughts, mysticism can be even harmful. An unstable mind could conclude, "This is all just a dream, and nothing really matters." Without Love-- and Love is both feeling and action--mysticism would be a dead and barren view. "Mysticism without Love" is an oxymoron, impossible. It simply could not exist. And Love is truly proved only by implementation. For without that, it remains only a matter of pretty words, powerless and impotent in the real world.
But in Love, at times, the sincerity of the wish can be all that matters. Love is arguably never perfect; but it never has to be. If a person does her honest best to express maximum Love, its technical "perfection"" becomes unimportant. The value of a life is measured by not only results but intention. the life of Jesus could be considered a failure if measured by only results; for his "followers" have been violent, unjust, atrocious barbarians capable of every atrocity. But his intention also counts. The Buddha said similarly that all karma was created by intention. If you intend to help another, and end up, by no fault of your own, harming her, you still get the good, positive karma. For your intention was good.
Conversely, if you want to harm someone, and end up helping her, you still get the negative or harmful karma. For your intention was bad.
The intent honestly to love is itself an act of real Love, and so, it counts. If you truly believe that some course is better for someone,that it will bring or increase happiness, and you are careful not to force or"parentize," then your best wishes will likely cause no damage. Always giving your best-- however imperfect--is itself also an act of Love.
*******
Since it must be unconditional, it must be given freely to all, and since it must be widespread, it cannot be very complicated.
So, we define this "minimal" Love as: Sincerely to wish the very best success and happiness even for the serial killer. It is also rather fervently to wish for her complete enlightenment in Love; it includes sincere hope for not only her enlightenment in Love, but also for happiness, tranquility, good friends, sufficient material comforts, a healthy mind and body, and several other components.
Mystics frankly do not concern themselves so much with the technical definition or the epistemology of the "good" as they do with the commonsense applications of well-wishing. For example, no mystic would ever wish the serial killer "do well" by killing more victims.
To wish someone well is to wish for them personal success, and what brings them happiness, bounded by goodness, kindness, service, genuine friendship, and other manifestations of Love. This blocks the possibility of wishing "well" for the serial killer in terms of more victims-- a bit of a perversity that would not even occur to the goodness-bound mystic.
While a mystic might choose not to become deeply entangled in the problems of a stranger, creating harm or danger to herself or her friends, if she sees an opportunity to aid any living, especially sentient, creature-- even an animal-- she will respond to the call of Love, and will give aid and assistance. This implies not parental responsibility for other adults, which is a mild pathology, but it does imply reactivity. When a woman is being raped in public, and fifty people look the other way, no mystic would ever be among the complacent and unresponsive. Some mystics might even choose to put themselves in danger to help the woman, although this is not a "law," but a matter of sensitivity of personal guidance (through conscience).
This is usually the case with strangers, about whom you might know little or nothing. The mystic is charged with loving even characters of incompetence and cruelty, such as the "shrub." And I can indeed love bush by wishing him enlightenment and awakening, and thus, the end to his otherwise terrible karma.
The enlightened, in caring, are always supremely cautious never to "parentize," or to love from the "interior parent," an unhealthy and false "love." So, we never take responsibility for the behaviors, actions, thoughts, or words of other adults. And we never try to impose our moral or ethical values upon others. We will teach and share when the opportunity arises, but we are not at all like the "parental" pastors, gurus, psychologists, and others who try to force or to control. Indeed, a core-teaching of the Way is that we must let go of all control. So, we do not encounter the problems of trying illegitimately to override the free choices of another. We can advise out of Love, we can even urge, but we do not believe in personal control.
This is not apathy. It is the simple recognition that every living being contains the same God or Love within them that the mystic has within her. And it is a personal and "inside job" for each to discover this, and to obey Love. Some today, some tomorrow, and some, a thousand years from now. But we relax in the knowing that each will find Love and enlightenment in her own proper time, and no one should be in a hurry. In loving the serial killer in this moment, the mystic loves the goodness (Love, God) deep within the killer, and is certain of the killer's ultimate enlightenment.
The mystic leans more towards the view that true Love includes aiding others to repair their lives in non-invasive, non-intrusive ways that do not involve over-influence, and that never involve control. Mystics do not view apathetically allowing a person to dig more deeply into a psychosis a valid Way of loving. So the mystic will listen, support as much as is morally possible, and discuss the issues non-judgmentally with the person who is so afflicted. She will always use kindness in abundance, and will remain sensitive, as noted, to the other's adulthood and sacred freedom to make whatever decision she chooses. But the concerned mystic does not practice complacency, indifference, or the monstrous idea of moral relativity ("Serial killing might be the best course for this person.") She rejects this nonsense, and knows that, all karma aside, it is her duty of Love, her obligation as a good person, to try to aid a person to find sanity-- and, if possible, move even towards enlightenment. This "accepting a serial killer as she is" as a definition of "Love" is either an excuse for lazy non-action at best; or, at worst, it is just bs and selfdelusion.
The recognition of decency, goodness, and kindness is never a matter of "superior" or "inferior." If God has given us a vision of Love as action, even remedial action, then we go as far as we can to implement it. As noted, we do not override the freedom of any adult to do this, but we make suggestions for improvement. Love calls us to do this; and Love tells us that whatever or whoever is right in front of us is our assignment or task from Love. At the moment, it is this article, for example.
This view-- that all values, without exception, are simply subjective and personal-- represents, to the moderate mystic, an extreme. For there are many subjective and personal characteristics of value-systems and value-judgments. The mystic does not want to impose, but she does believe that there are nevertheless truly harmful actions and helpful actions. More simply, there are true "good" and "bad" in the cosmos. This prevents the mystic from the slippery slide of moral relativity, wich says that "anything goes," and that a person is somehow "wrong" to conclude that certain actions are harmful.
But this is, in fact, how the mystic largely describes "good" and"evil": That which deliberately, voluntarily harms other living creatures, especially sentient ones, is "evil," and that which aids them is "good." Again, moral relativism seems to be more an excuse for non-action or non-response to people in need than it is a well-thought-out philosophy. It is a (false) defense for apathy, complacency, and even cruelty. It can also, btw, excuse or neglect as morally meaningful any behavior that you choose to justify. Those boobs called the "nazis" proved beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt that the human mind is capable of invalidly justifying or rationalizing any behavior at all. This is the important lesson that they gave us from history.
The caring person strives for elasticity, humility, and flexibility. She does not want to come across as a shallow, arrogant "know-it-all," which helps no one. But her flexibility is more that of plastic than that of water. For if you become "too liquid," you have no solid foundations for your own life or morality. You then become the inevitable victim of stronger personalities. You can be moderately open-minded without becoming value-free. This reminds me of the little joke: "If you are too open-minded, your brains might fall out." Of course, absence of ethics and morality has nothing to do with true open--mindedness. The mystic can remain open, and can respectfully listen to others, while still holding to her moral Center. When she is surrounded by neonazis, for example, she does not become a neonazi. when she is surrounded by cult-members, she does not lose perspective and fall into cult-thinking, losing her freedom.
In allowing any adult to be the person that she must be, and in allowing her to take her karmic tests, including confusion and ignorance, the mystic does not follow by falling into the delusions, and never the harmful behavior, of another. Her moral compass and gyroscope are made even firmer by challenge, and she loves best by shining her light of Love into another life. But again, it is emphasized, she does not coerce, force, push, manipulate, or interfere. She is never arrogant, or brazen, but shares Love with the attitude and comforting words of healing.
At times, as when the woman is being attacked in public, Love might require sacrifice. You might have to sacrifice comfort or convenience, or even personal safety, in the service of Love. (But you never sacrifice the safety of others, for this is not within your rights.) "Sacrifice" arises from two Latin words meaning "to make holy." So, the mystic "makes her life holy" by every act of Love; and her every thought of Love is a "prayer," while her actions of Love are her worship; her cathedral is the cosmos, ordinary life among imperfect human beings.
The mystic uses her mind, a gift from Mind, to determine what Love asks (or, more rarely, demands) from her. Then, she answers the call according to her capacities and limitations, avoiding perfectionism. For most people, "Love" is like the Supreme Court's definition of obscenity: They cannot clearly define it intellectually, but they know Love when they see it, or feel it. The mystic believes that Love is the Source of our Love-definitions and -actions. Following her own interior and subjective Tao honestly, she knows when to act, and what to do, in response to the guidance of Love. And Love is the Source of all her spiritual behavior. For her, this solves the problem of epistemology.
As a simple pattern of thoughts, mysticism can be even harmful. An unstable mind could conclude, "This is all just a dream, and nothing really matters." Without Love-- and Love is both feeling and action--mysticism would be a dead and barren view. "Mysticism without Love" is an oxymoron, impossible. It simply could not exist. And Love is truly proved only by implementation. For without that, it remains only a matter of pretty words, powerless and impotent in the real world.
But in Love, at times, the sincerity of the wish can be all that matters. Love is arguably never perfect; but it never has to be. If a person does her honest best to express maximum Love, its technical "perfection"" becomes unimportant. The value of a life is measured by not only results but intention. the life of Jesus could be considered a failure if measured by only results; for his "followers" have been violent, unjust, atrocious barbarians capable of every atrocity. But his intention also counts. The Buddha said similarly that all karma was created by intention. If you intend to help another, and end up, by no fault of your own, harming her, you still get the good, positive karma. For your intention was good.
Conversely, if you want to harm someone, and end up helping her, you still get the negative or harmful karma. For your intention was bad.
The intent honestly to love is itself an act of real Love, and so, it counts. If you truly believe that some course is better for someone,that it will bring or increase happiness, and you are careful not to force or"parentize," then your best wishes will likely cause no damage. Always giving your best-- however imperfect--is itself also an act of Love.
*******
The Helpful Mystic, Voluntary Murder, and Dreamsex
The mystic avoids the arrogance of believing herself to be the "corrector" or "parent" of any other adult. Still, she cares deeply for people-- even strangers-- and will often sacrifice widely, and exert herself, to aid anyone in distress.
Nevertheless, she holds on to "detachment" as one of her central values. This is never emotional coolness, aloofness, and certainly never apathy or complacency-- often, both demons of fear. It is never emotional irresponsivity or coldness, for her Center, Love, is an emotion. Instead, she has tender and deeply personal feelings for a friend-- and, often, for even a stranger in need of help and/or comfort. She will certainly share, often with passion, what she might believe is the best solution for the suffering person.
But she draws the line at coercion or manipulation. After sharing her best, and teaching the confused person, and gently supporting her, she knows that there is a valid time to let go and let God. She reassures and reminds herself that the troubled person has the same Godmind or Lovemind within her as the mystic herself possesses. She knows that the end of karma arises only with personal gnosis. So, while she will do everything within her power to teach and to demonstrate the Way, this is not an action that can be done by one for another.
Love compels and guides her. But she must draw the line at "over-Love." It is her assignment and delight to love those in trouble. But, as much as she truly loves them, it is not her mission to "fix" or "repair" anyone. Indeed, with the depth and scope of karma, it is beyond her (or anyone else's) capacity. And the mystic simply cannot afford, time-wise, to turn a single person's problems into a fulltime career.
She will likely run errands for the troubled. She will help her to connect with other people, especially if there are relationship-challenges. I do couples-counseling as a part of the spiritual work, serving as a more "objective third party," in aiding people to listen to each other.
She will actively support any action that she does not consider harmful-- her practical definition of "evil." She will listen non-judgmentally; she will make several phone-calls, not to "check up" on a person, but simply to offer support. She will likely write several emails. She will visit the one in need.
But she will never demand, force, impel, compel, or coerce anything. She will encourage and uplift. Mystics are usually fairly poor, but she will give money as well as time to attempt to aid.
She will do so much in response to Love that the mystic must always be careful about selfexhaustion. (Mystics have actually killed themselves this way, having failed to "love themselves as their neighbor.") So, if the cosmos has brought into her life a person with great need, she will push herself to be kind, obliging, giving, compassionate, and supportive.
But, again, we all know that some people will take outrageous advantage of such a loving approach. In fact, too much support can turn into enabling. So, the mystic is cautious of "over-supporting." She does not want to create or support an unhealthy cathexis. She does not want to reward dependency-behaviors. Since she loves herself also, she will not allow one person to eat up all her time and energy, so that she has nothing left for selfrecovery and selfenergizing. So, she does believe in limits, even in the expression of true Love. Out of reasonable selfrespect, the mystic does not want to be "used," and much less, "used up."
So, she modulates with reason the sheer quantity of aid that she is able to give. when she gives-- of time, energy, money, wisdom, or anything else-- she does so with utter sincerity and honesty. She seeks neither the rewards of God nor those of human beings. Her Love is pure, and has no "ulterior" or hidden selfmotives.
In the m-world (the maya-world), we do not always get to choose between "pure, unmitigated good" and an "obvious and horrific evil." Often, there are many shades of gray in between, and sometimes, it is difficult to impossible to define an action as "good" or "evil." Still, in many if not most cases, the "good path" or response will reveal itself. More often than not, it is the path that helps the most people-- even though "goodness" cannot be defined on an exclusively quantitative basis.
Mystics are different and very independent individual people. We emphasize freedom to the max, including freedom of faith and of conscience. We are guided by Love, not law. Many of us do not belong to official or formal organized religions. Some do not accept the Scriptures of some religions. So, the answer here might seem a bit unsatisfying, but be assured, it is not evasion. One mystic can feel that Love would allow, or compel, her to kill the killer to defend the
others, and another mystic might disagree.
At any rate, a mystic would not kill quickly, easily, or casually. Voluntarily to take a life is a huge gamble karmically. The cosmic Mind knows that, in some cases, it could be justified, and in some cases, even demanded. A mystic could take a life deliberately, but only under the very worst of all conditions. The target would have to be engaged in irreversible and inevitable murder of others.
Murder, and violence generally, are forbidden, under all normal circumstances, by the Way of Love. Some mystics are, in fact, such pacifists that they would rather die than take a life. For murder is a serious error, and dying is not a "sin" in the same way. Some mystics would allow themselves to die rather than to take a life; they would argue, with some validity, that to kill the killer forces you to stoop to her deeply flawed and unspiritual level. Some would never fight violence with violence.
A mystic who did "kill to save lives" would not ever be harshly judged by other mystics, who would show great understanding, and give any forgiveness necessary. The divine Mind would also do the same. But taking any human life violates so many codes of honor and Love that it might never be done under any circumstances. After all, most people feel that they have some "reason," or at least, some rationalization or justification, for murder. This alone can never make murder the "right thing to do."
Mystics are not absolutists in the moral realm. For example, mystics are people of honor and honesty. But if to reveal a "truth" would harm someone, it might be conscientiously witheld. If interrogated about a Jew in the attic, by an SS soldier, a mystic might lie, and say that no Jew was up there.
Moral and ethical laws are good and reliable guides for the mystic, and she respects them greatly. But no matter how vast the codex, laws must finally be interpreted by the individual conscience, an interior and God-given guide to behavior.
To be clear, I feel that I might kill if the death of friends or other innocents were inevitable. But in this very important matter, I cannot speak for mystics as a class or group, for their actions are very independent, selfgenerated, and quite varied, as each is ruled by Love-trained conscience.
Dreams are produced by the unconscious-- usually, the personal unconscious. So, the person is not responsible for the content of the dream. But, it might be argued, he is responsible for any behavior within a dream.
Psychologists still disagree about this. How responsible is a person for reactions, responses, or reactive behaviors while deeply asleep? Also, this question is complexified by the presence of powerful natural bioforces over which there might be little or no control.
You say that he is not aware that he is dreaming. But still, in the back of his mind, awareness might be actually present. If a dream is produced by the unconscious, that part of mind is likely also to realize that the dream is a dream, even if that datum is known only unconsciously.
The question boils down to exactly how responsible a person is for dream-behaviors. In sexual dreams, factors are also mitigated by exactly how sexually frustrated a man might be in his waking state: What are his relations and relationships with his wife like?
If it actually does happen, is a fait accompli, the only valid response is forgiveness, for this covers you whether or not an actual "immoral act" has been committed. Selforgiveness and forgiveness of the other are the only valid and healing responses of Love and goodness.
Is this pperson guilty of "immoral action"? If that term is defined in practical terms as the deliberate, voluntary harm of a living creature, the answer must be carefully considered: How much was controlled, or controllable? How much was voluntary or deliberate? It appears that a purely voluntary choice was made, but again, we cannot fully equate behaviors in deep sleep with those of lucid and awake consciousness. And if a sensitive wife argues that she has indeed been "harmed," this was clearly not a deliberate or voluntary act, due to the very unpredictable nature of dreams. And so, it might not come under the perhaps overly-convenient label of "immoral action."
Some mystics are more sensitive to sexuality,and thus, to sexual pecadillos, thanI am. They might define this action as "sin," and they are, of course, free to do so. And, at least for themselves, they might be right. But, in this case, I do not believe that the Lord of Love would so label this reaction.
Fundies hate the evident fact that Jesus was easier and more lenient with sexual sins than with others, including the most despised, selfrighteousness. I cannot see the Lord of Love becoming terribly upset by a creature's response, in a dream, to forces which She herself created, and which, under normal circumstances, actually are designed to express Love.
This engages the conscious mind much more as a decision-maker. Still, it might validly be concluded that, because it is a dream, it will cause no real harm. But again, it might create emotional harm, for example, to the wife; and emotional damage is prohibited by the practice of ahimsa.
Ahimsa is a necessary, indispensable aspect of the mystic's life. It is an interior and sacred vow made to cause no voluntary harm or damage to any living creature. This "harm" applies in four areas-- physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual. To do emotional harm to another is to do real harm, and it is forbidden by the mystic's vow to live in impeccable honor, according to her capacity. So, to indulge in this kind of lucid dream, if it would wound the wife, would be prohibited by the principles of the mystical life. This behavior would not be guided by the mystic's individual conscience, but rather, by the principles to which she has, as a mystic, agreed to live.
*******
Nevertheless, she holds on to "detachment" as one of her central values. This is never emotional coolness, aloofness, and certainly never apathy or complacency-- often, both demons of fear. It is never emotional irresponsivity or coldness, for her Center, Love, is an emotion. Instead, she has tender and deeply personal feelings for a friend-- and, often, for even a stranger in need of help and/or comfort. She will certainly share, often with passion, what she might believe is the best solution for the suffering person.
But she draws the line at coercion or manipulation. After sharing her best, and teaching the confused person, and gently supporting her, she knows that there is a valid time to let go and let God. She reassures and reminds herself that the troubled person has the same Godmind or Lovemind within her as the mystic herself possesses. She knows that the end of karma arises only with personal gnosis. So, while she will do everything within her power to teach and to demonstrate the Way, this is not an action that can be done by one for another.
Love compels and guides her. But she must draw the line at "over-Love." It is her assignment and delight to love those in trouble. But, as much as she truly loves them, it is not her mission to "fix" or "repair" anyone. Indeed, with the depth and scope of karma, it is beyond her (or anyone else's) capacity. And the mystic simply cannot afford, time-wise, to turn a single person's problems into a fulltime career.
She will likely run errands for the troubled. She will help her to connect with other people, especially if there are relationship-challenges. I do couples-counseling as a part of the spiritual work, serving as a more "objective third party," in aiding people to listen to each other.
She will actively support any action that she does not consider harmful-- her practical definition of "evil." She will listen non-judgmentally; she will make several phone-calls, not to "check up" on a person, but simply to offer support. She will likely write several emails. She will visit the one in need.
But she will never demand, force, impel, compel, or coerce anything. She will encourage and uplift. Mystics are usually fairly poor, but she will give money as well as time to attempt to aid.
She will do so much in response to Love that the mystic must always be careful about selfexhaustion. (Mystics have actually killed themselves this way, having failed to "love themselves as their neighbor.") So, if the cosmos has brought into her life a person with great need, she will push herself to be kind, obliging, giving, compassionate, and supportive.
But, again, we all know that some people will take outrageous advantage of such a loving approach. In fact, too much support can turn into enabling. So, the mystic is cautious of "over-supporting." She does not want to create or support an unhealthy cathexis. She does not want to reward dependency-behaviors. Since she loves herself also, she will not allow one person to eat up all her time and energy, so that she has nothing left for selfrecovery and selfenergizing. So, she does believe in limits, even in the expression of true Love. Out of reasonable selfrespect, the mystic does not want to be "used," and much less, "used up."
So, she modulates with reason the sheer quantity of aid that she is able to give. when she gives-- of time, energy, money, wisdom, or anything else-- she does so with utter sincerity and honesty. She seeks neither the rewards of God nor those of human beings. Her Love is pure, and has no "ulterior" or hidden selfmotives.
In the m-world (the maya-world), we do not always get to choose between "pure, unmitigated good" and an "obvious and horrific evil." Often, there are many shades of gray in between, and sometimes, it is difficult to impossible to define an action as "good" or "evil." Still, in many if not most cases, the "good path" or response will reveal itself. More often than not, it is the path that helps the most people-- even though "goodness" cannot be defined on an exclusively quantitative basis.
Mystics are different and very independent individual people. We emphasize freedom to the max, including freedom of faith and of conscience. We are guided by Love, not law. Many of us do not belong to official or formal organized religions. Some do not accept the Scriptures of some religions. So, the answer here might seem a bit unsatisfying, but be assured, it is not evasion. One mystic can feel that Love would allow, or compel, her to kill the killer to defend the
others, and another mystic might disagree.
At any rate, a mystic would not kill quickly, easily, or casually. Voluntarily to take a life is a huge gamble karmically. The cosmic Mind knows that, in some cases, it could be justified, and in some cases, even demanded. A mystic could take a life deliberately, but only under the very worst of all conditions. The target would have to be engaged in irreversible and inevitable murder of others.
Murder, and violence generally, are forbidden, under all normal circumstances, by the Way of Love. Some mystics are, in fact, such pacifists that they would rather die than take a life. For murder is a serious error, and dying is not a "sin" in the same way. Some mystics would allow themselves to die rather than to take a life; they would argue, with some validity, that to kill the killer forces you to stoop to her deeply flawed and unspiritual level. Some would never fight violence with violence.
A mystic who did "kill to save lives" would not ever be harshly judged by other mystics, who would show great understanding, and give any forgiveness necessary. The divine Mind would also do the same. But taking any human life violates so many codes of honor and Love that it might never be done under any circumstances. After all, most people feel that they have some "reason," or at least, some rationalization or justification, for murder. This alone can never make murder the "right thing to do."
Mystics are not absolutists in the moral realm. For example, mystics are people of honor and honesty. But if to reveal a "truth" would harm someone, it might be conscientiously witheld. If interrogated about a Jew in the attic, by an SS soldier, a mystic might lie, and say that no Jew was up there.
Moral and ethical laws are good and reliable guides for the mystic, and she respects them greatly. But no matter how vast the codex, laws must finally be interpreted by the individual conscience, an interior and God-given guide to behavior.
To be clear, I feel that I might kill if the death of friends or other innocents were inevitable. But in this very important matter, I cannot speak for mystics as a class or group, for their actions are very independent, selfgenerated, and quite varied, as each is ruled by Love-trained conscience.
Dreams are produced by the unconscious-- usually, the personal unconscious. So, the person is not responsible for the content of the dream. But, it might be argued, he is responsible for any behavior within a dream.
Psychologists still disagree about this. How responsible is a person for reactions, responses, or reactive behaviors while deeply asleep? Also, this question is complexified by the presence of powerful natural bioforces over which there might be little or no control.
You say that he is not aware that he is dreaming. But still, in the back of his mind, awareness might be actually present. If a dream is produced by the unconscious, that part of mind is likely also to realize that the dream is a dream, even if that datum is known only unconsciously.
The question boils down to exactly how responsible a person is for dream-behaviors. In sexual dreams, factors are also mitigated by exactly how sexually frustrated a man might be in his waking state: What are his relations and relationships with his wife like?
If it actually does happen, is a fait accompli, the only valid response is forgiveness, for this covers you whether or not an actual "immoral act" has been committed. Selforgiveness and forgiveness of the other are the only valid and healing responses of Love and goodness.
Is this pperson guilty of "immoral action"? If that term is defined in practical terms as the deliberate, voluntary harm of a living creature, the answer must be carefully considered: How much was controlled, or controllable? How much was voluntary or deliberate? It appears that a purely voluntary choice was made, but again, we cannot fully equate behaviors in deep sleep with those of lucid and awake consciousness. And if a sensitive wife argues that she has indeed been "harmed," this was clearly not a deliberate or voluntary act, due to the very unpredictable nature of dreams. And so, it might not come under the perhaps overly-convenient label of "immoral action."
Some mystics are more sensitive to sexuality,and thus, to sexual pecadillos, thanI am. They might define this action as "sin," and they are, of course, free to do so. And, at least for themselves, they might be right. But, in this case, I do not believe that the Lord of Love would so label this reaction.
Fundies hate the evident fact that Jesus was easier and more lenient with sexual sins than with others, including the most despised, selfrighteousness. I cannot see the Lord of Love becoming terribly upset by a creature's response, in a dream, to forces which She herself created, and which, under normal circumstances, actually are designed to express Love.
This engages the conscious mind much more as a decision-maker. Still, it might validly be concluded that, because it is a dream, it will cause no real harm. But again, it might create emotional harm, for example, to the wife; and emotional damage is prohibited by the practice of ahimsa.
Ahimsa is a necessary, indispensable aspect of the mystic's life. It is an interior and sacred vow made to cause no voluntary harm or damage to any living creature. This "harm" applies in four areas-- physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual. To do emotional harm to another is to do real harm, and it is forbidden by the mystic's vow to live in impeccable honor, according to her capacity. So, to indulge in this kind of lucid dream, if it would wound the wife, would be prohibited by the principles of the mystical life. This behavior would not be guided by the mystic's individual conscience, but rather, by the principles to which she has, as a mystic, agreed to live.
*******
Healing
"Faith-healing" sometimes has little to do with faith, but is often triggered by the "placebo" effect. When the mind powerfully expects something, it can often occur. In wartime emergencies, for example, people were often given sugar-pills and told that they were very powerful pain-killers, and the pain-level dropped from twenty to eighty percent. Those given the same worthless pills, and told that they were sedetives, fell asleep seven out of ten times.
The mind has been given huge power by God. It cannot, of course, cure all diseases and disorders, but science has no idea what might be its limits. A lot of wishful thinkers, still practicing childish "magical thinking," as psychologists call it, claim that the mind has no limits.
But it does.
Many faith-healers claim to "cure" conditions that might have been imaginary from the beginning. Since that "condition" was caused by thinking, it was fairly easy to "cure," by changing the thinking.
Belief is related to, but not quite the same as, faith. Often, a person can be cured simply by switching to the belief that she is well. Still, a cure might not be one hundred percent. Many healers claim one hundred percent cures, when the condition returns 20 minutes, or 20 days, later. Sometimes, other people simply get better, and mistake this for a cure. And, it has been reported, some people actually get worse after the "healing."
So, many results can occur. Still, this soundly skeptical attitude should not be extended to a full denail of all healing. For healing is a true gift of God, and some very loving people can truly aid with physical disorders and disabilities.
But if Jesus were actually working through these "healers," the success-rate would likely be much higher and more impressive. Many "healers" are natural hypnotists, able to hypnotize or mesmerize certain suggestible persons that they are feeling better, or even getting well. The power of the mind under hypnosis can be greatly increased. A person can be burned by a normal-temperature object if told that it is very hot, under hypnosis. After the "show," however, symptoms can recur, without any improvement.
Sometimes, true healings do occur. Do the "healers" cause these? Probably not, although they might have an effect. For total cures have been recorded when no healer was present. In medicine, this is called "spontaneous remission," and it occurs quite frequently. At times, it can be triggered by prayer, meditation, or visualization. But it can also occur when one is doing nothing in particular. It has occurred while people were skiing, or watching a silly sitcom on tv.
The bottom line is this: In God's plans for us, He has determined that some of us will be tested by the challenge of biological or biomedical disorders. Our souls have agreed to this, before our birth. If and when the test is complete, the condition and its symptoms can disappear. (Some are meant,and designed, to last a lifetime-- not long in soul-history.) God can heal us at any time. God can use any symbol to heal us. God can heal us through a deep breath, a touch of sunlight, petting a dog. God can heal us through education in nutrition and exercise (both of which awaken selflove). God can also use a healer, or a toaster, to heal us, according to God's will.
Illness is a great test of faith. If God does not heal a person, it does not mean that God is evil, or that God is angry with that person. It simply implies that she has more to learn; the lesson is not over yet. And some people will never be healed of a particular condition. Does this mean that they have not enough faith? No, it simply means that their soul has designed this life for them to learn whatever they can. If a person decides to spend an entire life with a medical condition, that is only two minutes in the larger life of the soul.
There are also many places that are famous for healing, proving again that God does not need a "healer"to heal.
And, in the final anallysis, Love is the only healing energy in the cosmos. Each time that you love yourself or another, a healing occurs. It might be a small healing, too small even to notice; but these add up. So, we do best to follow the guidance of the Spirit, and love at every opportunity. This we do through forgiveness, compassion, teaching, healing, kindness, charity, and tenderness.
*******
The mind has been given huge power by God. It cannot, of course, cure all diseases and disorders, but science has no idea what might be its limits. A lot of wishful thinkers, still practicing childish "magical thinking," as psychologists call it, claim that the mind has no limits.
But it does.
Many faith-healers claim to "cure" conditions that might have been imaginary from the beginning. Since that "condition" was caused by thinking, it was fairly easy to "cure," by changing the thinking.
Belief is related to, but not quite the same as, faith. Often, a person can be cured simply by switching to the belief that she is well. Still, a cure might not be one hundred percent. Many healers claim one hundred percent cures, when the condition returns 20 minutes, or 20 days, later. Sometimes, other people simply get better, and mistake this for a cure. And, it has been reported, some people actually get worse after the "healing."
So, many results can occur. Still, this soundly skeptical attitude should not be extended to a full denail of all healing. For healing is a true gift of God, and some very loving people can truly aid with physical disorders and disabilities.
But if Jesus were actually working through these "healers," the success-rate would likely be much higher and more impressive. Many "healers" are natural hypnotists, able to hypnotize or mesmerize certain suggestible persons that they are feeling better, or even getting well. The power of the mind under hypnosis can be greatly increased. A person can be burned by a normal-temperature object if told that it is very hot, under hypnosis. After the "show," however, symptoms can recur, without any improvement.
Sometimes, true healings do occur. Do the "healers" cause these? Probably not, although they might have an effect. For total cures have been recorded when no healer was present. In medicine, this is called "spontaneous remission," and it occurs quite frequently. At times, it can be triggered by prayer, meditation, or visualization. But it can also occur when one is doing nothing in particular. It has occurred while people were skiing, or watching a silly sitcom on tv.
The bottom line is this: In God's plans for us, He has determined that some of us will be tested by the challenge of biological or biomedical disorders. Our souls have agreed to this, before our birth. If and when the test is complete, the condition and its symptoms can disappear. (Some are meant,and designed, to last a lifetime-- not long in soul-history.) God can heal us at any time. God can use any symbol to heal us. God can heal us through a deep breath, a touch of sunlight, petting a dog. God can heal us through education in nutrition and exercise (both of which awaken selflove). God can also use a healer, or a toaster, to heal us, according to God's will.
Illness is a great test of faith. If God does not heal a person, it does not mean that God is evil, or that God is angry with that person. It simply implies that she has more to learn; the lesson is not over yet. And some people will never be healed of a particular condition. Does this mean that they have not enough faith? No, it simply means that their soul has designed this life for them to learn whatever they can. If a person decides to spend an entire life with a medical condition, that is only two minutes in the larger life of the soul.
There are also many places that are famous for healing, proving again that God does not need a "healer"to heal.
And, in the final anallysis, Love is the only healing energy in the cosmos. Each time that you love yourself or another, a healing occurs. It might be a small healing, too small even to notice; but these add up. So, we do best to follow the guidance of the Spirit, and love at every opportunity. This we do through forgiveness, compassion, teaching, healing, kindness, charity, and tenderness.
*******
Political Immorality, Incompetence, and Hells
A tripartite separation of Iraq into three countries-- one for the Kurds, one for the Shea, and one for the Sunis-- is the best solution to end the civil war and to establish a gov acceptable to the Iraqis. And it will very probably be the solution that they finally discover. For, together, they are like wildcats and wolves, and plan never to get along.
"Power attracts idiocy" is perhaps the most succinct version of this great truth that has ever been seen.:)
Perhaps the redeeming value of this truth is that "the shrub" cannot transform his less-than-sane peregrinations into national policy. Also, he is quite a bit too dense to do so. At any rate, he is clearly in everyone's debt, especially the large corporations who bought his office for him. The shrub has not a chance ever to speak an independent word or create an independent action. Not that he could ever create one, anyway. He has sold every micropsychon of his personal freedom-- and for nothing but mere bucks. One criterion of the value of a man is whether he will sell himself for mere money. He who does shows that he has no selfesteem or social value.
This attack on the innocent moves, in my book, beyond mere irony into hypocrisy. You cannot effectively fight terrorism by becoming an even bigger and meaner terrorist. It is simply the wrong policy based on the wrong attitude, and in it, human life has no value.
I do not want to be a simplistic reductionist in the complex fields of psychology and psychosocial change. But I do honestly believe that, without greed, wars would not have appeared in history, and would still not appear today. Arguably, of course, some wars are fought in "self-defense," which is the primary rationalization of the latest attack on Lebanon by Israel. But even here, greed lurks just beneath the surface. The Israelis have historically been greedy for land. And, of course, surrounded by enemies, this is not an unmixed motive. And further, it is completely understandable, especially in view of a need for a bufferzone.
The recognition of hypocrisy is a necessity if you are realistic. For hypocrisy is a major element in almost all religion, but it has no place in spirituality.
There are no permanent hells in Buddhism. Still certain states of mind are regularly recognized as "hellstates." The difference between a "hell" and a "purgatory" seems to be in the mind. If one is suffering and has no idea why, this is hell. But if one is suffering the same torment, and knows why, this is purgatory. For in the latter case, one is being "purified" by her redeeming knowing and understanding.
*******
"Power attracts idiocy" is perhaps the most succinct version of this great truth that has ever been seen.:)
Perhaps the redeeming value of this truth is that "the shrub" cannot transform his less-than-sane peregrinations into national policy. Also, he is quite a bit too dense to do so. At any rate, he is clearly in everyone's debt, especially the large corporations who bought his office for him. The shrub has not a chance ever to speak an independent word or create an independent action. Not that he could ever create one, anyway. He has sold every micropsychon of his personal freedom-- and for nothing but mere bucks. One criterion of the value of a man is whether he will sell himself for mere money. He who does shows that he has no selfesteem or social value.
This attack on the innocent moves, in my book, beyond mere irony into hypocrisy. You cannot effectively fight terrorism by becoming an even bigger and meaner terrorist. It is simply the wrong policy based on the wrong attitude, and in it, human life has no value.
I do not want to be a simplistic reductionist in the complex fields of psychology and psychosocial change. But I do honestly believe that, without greed, wars would not have appeared in history, and would still not appear today. Arguably, of course, some wars are fought in "self-defense," which is the primary rationalization of the latest attack on Lebanon by Israel. But even here, greed lurks just beneath the surface. The Israelis have historically been greedy for land. And, of course, surrounded by enemies, this is not an unmixed motive. And further, it is completely understandable, especially in view of a need for a bufferzone.
The recognition of hypocrisy is a necessity if you are realistic. For hypocrisy is a major element in almost all religion, but it has no place in spirituality.
There are no permanent hells in Buddhism. Still certain states of mind are regularly recognized as "hellstates." The difference between a "hell" and a "purgatory" seems to be in the mind. If one is suffering and has no idea why, this is hell. But if one is suffering the same torment, and knows why, this is purgatory. For in the latter case, one is being "purified" by her redeeming knowing and understanding.
*******
Orthodox versus Gnostic Christians
There is no clash between mysticism and Christianity. Many of Jesus' and Paul's statements, as well as John's, are regularly quoted by mystics. But during the first two centuries of Christianity, the Church evolved into an institution instead of a family. It quickly became very rich, and in 312, it became involved in Roman politics, deceit, war, etc. That was the year that Constantine the emperor said that he converted.
Not everyone liked, or agreed with, the huge institution that the Church was becoming. Some wanted it to remain the simple family of Love, of God. So, the Church split into two very large groups-- the gnostics and the orthodox. The gnostics felt that people should be free and independent spiritually, but the orthodox felt that everyone should believe the same things-- a concept called "dogma." The orthodox were the ones whose hands were filthy with politics and greed. they actually killed some of the gnostics. They claimed that the gnostics were following Satan.
But these gnostics were Christians who loved Jesus. These gnostics were mystics. [Note: We are here talking about "small g" generic gnostics. The "capital G" Gnostics in the early church were cultlike groups with some odd and strange ideas, but they were not real mystics (gnostics).]
Long story short: gnostics said that God would teach a person in her heart, so that Christians did not need big churches. Jesus had not built a church-building. Christians were meeting in homes for over three hundred years after His death. The gnostics still did this. The gnostics said that murdering people who have a different kind of Christianity was evil and wrong. So, the orthodox started persecuting, and even killing, the gnostics.
Sadly, most churches today followed the orthodox, despite their nightmarish violence, unkindness, and ignorance. That is why most people in most churches think that the gnostics (mystics) were wrong, or even "evil." But almost all of these modern Christians have never read any of the ancient writings of the gnostics. They are like a person who has never played poker, but claims to "Hate"the game.
*******
Not everyone liked, or agreed with, the huge institution that the Church was becoming. Some wanted it to remain the simple family of Love, of God. So, the Church split into two very large groups-- the gnostics and the orthodox. The gnostics felt that people should be free and independent spiritually, but the orthodox felt that everyone should believe the same things-- a concept called "dogma." The orthodox were the ones whose hands were filthy with politics and greed. they actually killed some of the gnostics. They claimed that the gnostics were following Satan.
But these gnostics were Christians who loved Jesus. These gnostics were mystics. [Note: We are here talking about "small g" generic gnostics. The "capital G" Gnostics in the early church were cultlike groups with some odd and strange ideas, but they were not real mystics (gnostics).]
Long story short: gnostics said that God would teach a person in her heart, so that Christians did not need big churches. Jesus had not built a church-building. Christians were meeting in homes for over three hundred years after His death. The gnostics still did this. The gnostics said that murdering people who have a different kind of Christianity was evil and wrong. So, the orthodox started persecuting, and even killing, the gnostics.
Sadly, most churches today followed the orthodox, despite their nightmarish violence, unkindness, and ignorance. That is why most people in most churches think that the gnostics (mystics) were wrong, or even "evil." But almost all of these modern Christians have never read any of the ancient writings of the gnostics. They are like a person who has never played poker, but claims to "Hate"the game.
*******
Learning throughout Eternity
All forms of Christianity, as well as other forms of universal spirituality, teach that death is not the end of life. As people were born on earth for their education, after this earthlife is completed, their education continues. As for "sinners," that is all of us. We are saved by only God's grace.
You come to earth from the soul-world in order to learn. But earth-life is only a moment, and a brief one, in the history of your soul. Education continues both before and after this life. Each is educated by living in various relationships with others, learning patience, forgiveness, and making errors that are part of the schooling. We are all here to learn the lessons of Jesus-- those of compassion, forgiveness, and Love. Even when a person "graduates" from earth, there are still an infinite number of lessons and courses left in the "university of the universe."
Those who learn Love must continue to learn ever finer applications of Love. And those who do not learn-- the "sinners," as you say-- must continue to take the same lessons over and over again, until finally they pass them. Failing is not an option, not a possibility. You might fail for a thousand years, but success is ultimately guaranteed for all. They will have to take these lessons until they receive a "passing grade."
And no one can ever stop going to school. And we are forced to take the lessons that the Master (God or Christ) forces upon us by our lives. In fact, every event, every day, might be seen as a lesson, especially if it tests your patience, kindness, forgiveness, or compassion.
God is not limited in time. God has forever to give us as many lessons as we need. If it takes a thousand years for a soul to pass a particular test, God just takes a thousand years. God is not in any hurry; He realizes that He has no time-limits. So, He does not force us to grow. He just waits patiently, as Love in the heart, and He will, with utter kindness, wait as long as it takes.
*******
You come to earth from the soul-world in order to learn. But earth-life is only a moment, and a brief one, in the history of your soul. Education continues both before and after this life. Each is educated by living in various relationships with others, learning patience, forgiveness, and making errors that are part of the schooling. We are all here to learn the lessons of Jesus-- those of compassion, forgiveness, and Love. Even when a person "graduates" from earth, there are still an infinite number of lessons and courses left in the "university of the universe."
Those who learn Love must continue to learn ever finer applications of Love. And those who do not learn-- the "sinners," as you say-- must continue to take the same lessons over and over again, until finally they pass them. Failing is not an option, not a possibility. You might fail for a thousand years, but success is ultimately guaranteed for all. They will have to take these lessons until they receive a "passing grade."
And no one can ever stop going to school. And we are forced to take the lessons that the Master (God or Christ) forces upon us by our lives. In fact, every event, every day, might be seen as a lesson, especially if it tests your patience, kindness, forgiveness, or compassion.
God is not limited in time. God has forever to give us as many lessons as we need. If it takes a thousand years for a soul to pass a particular test, God just takes a thousand years. God is not in any hurry; He realizes that He has no time-limits. So, He does not force us to grow. He just waits patiently, as Love in the heart, and He will, with utter kindness, wait as long as it takes.
*******
We are all war ciminals
July 24, 2006 at 00:10:45
TODAY, WE ARE ALL WAR CRIMINALS
Tell A Friend
by thepen
http://www.opednews.com
If you have NOT ALREADY called your members of Congress to demand they stand up for a cease-fire in Lebanon, the war crimes against humanity being committed there are yours as well. As always, the particular words of this article are the responsibility of this writer alone.
TOLL-FREE NUMBERS: 888-355-3588 and 800-828-0498
ACTION PAGE: http://www.peaceteam.net/cease-fire.php
On July 20th, The House of Representatives passed H. Res. 921 by a vote of 410-8 expressing unconditional support of "Israel's right to defend itself". This, after it was already clear that Israel's military assault was deliberately targeting the civilian infrastructure of Lebanon, and massively and systematically so. There is not a word calling for restraint, instead the resolution praises Israel for their "longstanding commitment to minimizing civilian loss". It's a wonder the document didn't burst into flames on the floor of the House before it could pass.
Congress knew, or should have known, this on July 20th. For the rest of the American people, the ghastly extent of what Israel has done, and continues to do, is just beginning to poke through our propaganda-based corporate media. Israel has literally leveled substantial areas of Beirut, a scene described by observers as "horrific". Even the British, our only remaining poodle ally in our own criminal occupation of Iraq, have awoken from their moral slumber and condemned the Israeli tactics. One of America's quisling news organizations is calling the civilian neighborhoods being targeted Hezbollah "strongholds", which we would guess means they have more Hezbollah residents than say . . . Tel Aviv.
Israel is in the process of taking out every bridge, every power station, every civilian factory, or any other recognizable infrastructure in South Lebanon, creating 500,000 refugees, a "humanitarian disaster" in the making. And still they lust for more weapons of mass destruction, seeking to expedite a previous order for 5 ton laser guided bombs. As civilian deaths pass 400, the estimated property damage is already in the billions.
Meanwhile Israel is washing its hands of any responsibility (at least for the civilian deaths), with now the enthusiastic endorsement of our Congress, by saying it is dropping leaflets telling people to get out. Never mind that people are now desperately trapped because the roads are impassible due to the widespread destruction. You remember when FEMA tried to absolve itself by saying it had told people to get out of New Orleans. At least they weren't themselves bombing the roads as hurricane Katrina loomed down on the city.
And yet, in response to all this, there are still depraved knuckleheads running around saying things like, "But it's OK for Hezbollah to fire rockets into Israel." (an actual email we read last night)
It's a miracle someone who would say something so perversely ignorant could even operate a personal computer. NO, it is NOT OK for Hezbollah to do what they have done. Hezbollah are acting as international criminals and they deserve to be condemned by all with even a shred of remaining human decency. And we DO so condemn them. But their provocations pale in comparison to the monstrous war crimes Israel is committing right now in response. And it in fact does nothing but strengthen Hezbollah's hand.
The Bush administration, and now the Congress, has missed no opportunity to ignore or block calls for an immediate cease-fire, including tough guy Bolton's veto of a security council resolution on July 13th, before the situation had spun so completely out of control. What Israel is doing is the moral equivalent of carpet-bombing Chicago because Al Capone is operating there. And were they to be justly tried by an impartial tribunal as to their own actions, they would be found guilty of war crimes and made to pay reparations to the Lebanese democracy, assuming it even survives.
For those who believe in the Old Testament, presumably most citizens of Israel, and including one would think many Christians in this country, the Bible tells us that God would have spared even Sodom and Gomorrah for sake of ten righteous [Genesis 18:20-32]. A relatively small band of militants, perhaps as few as ten, kidnapped the two Israeli soldiers which has triggered Israel's outpouring of blind and brutal revenge against the Lebanese people. And so for the sake of a handful of the UN-righteous, Lebanon is to destroyed even as were those most wicked of cities? Isn't that just a LITTLE bit backwards?
It might be argued that as to our own illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq there was significant opposition in Congress, representing some substantial part of the American population. But the ringing endorsement of Congress on July 20th for the Israeli war crimes campaign was 410-8. Were there not ten righteous in Congress with the courage to stand up and speak the truth? If you include the four who voted "Not Present" with that express intent, there were. But that does not absolve YOU unless YOU call your members of Congress right now and demand an immediate cease-fire in Lebanon.
Those who have never called a member of Congress before justify it by arguing that our members of Congress will not listen to us anyway. Who gives a damn about any of that kind of defeatist thinking? This is about YOUR salvation now. Will you speak out or will you not? And if you do not, YOU are personally guilty of every war crime committed by Israel with the encouragement of the U.S. Congress. On the website below you can with one click instantly look up the phone and fax numbers of all your members of Congress right down to the local district office numbers. There is NO excuse for someone to say they could not get through.
CALL YOUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS NOW AND DEMAND THEY CALL FOR AN IMMEDIATE CEASE-FIRE IN LEBANON
TOLL-FREE NUMBERS: 888-355-3588 and 800-828-0498
ACTION PAGE: http://www.peaceteam.net/cease-fire.php
In a truly craven attempt to channel the sympathy of 9/11 yet again, on July 18th, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman told Christians United for Israel, a group advocating strongly for a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran, that "Today, we are all Israelis" (emulating the famous post 9/11 Le Monde headline). Mehlman no longer speaks for any but the extreme lunatic fringe. But as of the moment of the overwhelmingly wholehearted Congressional vote on July 20th on H. Res. 921, it can fairly be said that as Americans now we are all WAR CRIMINALS. Yes, that's right, YOU are a war criminal, unless you speak out and call for a cease-fire in Lebanon now. So call, call again, call some more, and keep calling, until sanity prevails.
Monday, July 24, 2006
Mental Illness
Mental illness is usually confined to the physical bodybrain system, and does not have any effect on deeper Mind (Soulmind). So, it is cured immediately upon death, and the soul moves forward in Love, cured by Love, on its spiritual path.
But, theoretically, a souldisease could also exist in the form of mental illness. This souldisease is also cured by a superbombardment of Love from the interior divine Spirit. A soul with soul-illness would be extremely rare, perhaps fewer than one in amillion, as most disturbances do not sink this low into the deeper Mind (soul). Nevertheless, there are non-material beings (call them "angels," of traditional variety) who will care for and tend to the soulically ill and will work for centuries if necessary to restore them to good mental health. There are entire Love-teams of such helpers, and the ill get much special attention. They are both protected and educated by Love.
They are sometimes given lifetimes with very mild challenges, but they, too, continue to grow, as we all must do. But if, for example, the illness is greed, they are slowed to a crawl. Happily, the universal Mind has forever to do Her job; and it will be done, no matter what.
These sick beings will come into permanent happiness and irreversible peace.
But, theoretically, a souldisease could also exist in the form of mental illness. This souldisease is also cured by a superbombardment of Love from the interior divine Spirit. A soul with soul-illness would be extremely rare, perhaps fewer than one in amillion, as most disturbances do not sink this low into the deeper Mind (soul). Nevertheless, there are non-material beings (call them "angels," of traditional variety) who will care for and tend to the soulically ill and will work for centuries if necessary to restore them to good mental health. There are entire Love-teams of such helpers, and the ill get much special attention. They are both protected and educated by Love.
They are sometimes given lifetimes with very mild challenges, but they, too, continue to grow, as we all must do. But if, for example, the illness is greed, they are slowed to a crawl. Happily, the universal Mind has forever to do Her job; and it will be done, no matter what.
These sick beings will come into permanent happiness and irreversible peace.
Mysteries of the Polycosmos
Of course, in eternity and infinity, any number of unsolved mysteries do exist. One of the mystic's most pleasurable occupations, in fact, can be speculating about them.
In a delightfully unlimited and boundless cosmos, the solutions about which we can speculate are mindboggling and exciting.
For example, there must, it seems imho, be an infinite number of parallel universes. If this were not so, the education of the soul would have to be forever incomplete. Let us say that you, in this universe or time-line, are pb 1, just for a kind of shorthand. In the cosmos of PB2, he would have to have made at least one important decision differently than you. PB3 would have made still another decision differently. Whereas you chose path a, he chose path b, in situation x. That is pb2. But pb3 chose b rather than a, in situation y.
Perhaps, in consideration of the thousands of decisions that make up a life, you can see how mindboggling in complexity the "multiverse," "polycosmos," or "supercosmos" must be. At death, you come together with everyalternate pb in one unified psyche, and so, have a complete education, lacking nothing, from all the possibilities offered by the pb role or mask.
Please think about this, and let it incubate in the Unconscious.
*******
In a delightfully unlimited and boundless cosmos, the solutions about which we can speculate are mindboggling and exciting.
For example, there must, it seems imho, be an infinite number of parallel universes. If this were not so, the education of the soul would have to be forever incomplete. Let us say that you, in this universe or time-line, are pb 1, just for a kind of shorthand. In the cosmos of PB2, he would have to have made at least one important decision differently than you. PB3 would have made still another decision differently. Whereas you chose path a, he chose path b, in situation x. That is pb2. But pb3 chose b rather than a, in situation y.
Perhaps, in consideration of the thousands of decisions that make up a life, you can see how mindboggling in complexity the "multiverse," "polycosmos," or "supercosmos" must be. At death, you come together with everyalternate pb in one unified psyche, and so, have a complete education, lacking nothing, from all the possibilities offered by the pb role or mask.
Please think about this, and let it incubate in the Unconscious.
*******
More Sex
It is known that the truly sensitive, and artistic, Greeks held women in great awe, honor, esteem, and respect. Arguably, some even worshipped the feminine. A Goddess is a wonderful alternative, after all, to a god. Early Christians worshipped a goddess named Sophia, and, of course, the Catholic Church has a strong tradition of Marialotry. That might be one of its redeeming qualities. Greek culture was so much more cultured and refined, in many ways, than modern people. Certainly, the goddesses contributed a warmth and humanness to their theology that is totally absent, imho, in a writer such as Augustine.
Of course, sex is largely biology. I have no objection to this; who could? But it has the human potential to be so much more-- to represent and symbolize the sacred, the deepest yearnings and highest aspirations. I believe that it is a degradation of a very high opportunity when people reduce sex to biosex. Of course, it is fun. Nature wanted us to keep "doing it." she made damn' sure that we would! And there is nothing wrong with the great joy that can come from playful and fun sex! But I object to using sex, or dismissing it, as biosex only. This is like using a fine and expensive sculpture for a coatrack. Or, it is like using a computer to type only fourletter expletives all day long, page after page. Or, it is like carelessly handling a fine diamond, so that you crack it, ruining its value and beauty.
Sex is a delightful and wonderful gift of nature, or God, or, Goddess, through nature.
Some of the early cultures had it right when they viewed sex as something to celebrate. But they went far too far in their orgies and total disrespect for women and for sex. For there is a galaxy of difference between Lovemaking and mere "f+++ing." And the distinction is in the attitude. Sex can be art, spirituality, Love, splendor, celebration,joy, sharing, communion, passion-- or, it can be mere "rutting." Since we cannot be totally reduced to "animals," in that word's most perjorative sense, it is a mistake to reduce sex to mere biosex, when it is more fun, and much richer, as both psychosex and pneumosex.
I wrote, "If sex becomes a mere toy, a plaything, and loses its seriousness, it can degenerate into a game of Monopoly, or just some other snore and yawn."
I cannot imagine anything more boring than a god who never plays. The god of mysticism is not the hyperanal Jehovah, who obviously hated sex from the beginning-- even though he, ostensibly, was its creator. It is because of the perceived antisexuality of the god that our culture has used sex so cynically; it has demoralized sex. Sex should be the ideal combination of joy and worship. No, it is not being implied that a couple should grimly pray before sex, or even formally address God at all. the "prayer" is the sex itself, if it comes from Love.
Imho, it is a tragedy that our culture has so thoroughly dissociated sex from Love. This is the real catastrophe, the real abuse. We have abandoned the nobility of fine sex, its elegance and refinement. That is why we have sex without Love, which is mere rape, and why we have the proliferation of pornography, including kiddie-porn. If we could readjust our society to a healthy and respectful view of sex, some of these problems would have much less impact.
Seeing sex as a form of worship could have this salutory effect on what would otherwise be only salacious. We could lift sex out of the "mire of animalism," and return it to Love, where it belongs. (There is nothing wrong with "animalsex," but if sex is reduced to only that, it is stripped of its rich poetic and spiritual heritage, and Love is torn away.
If you hold the same superhigh standards for "performance," for example, it acts against the perfect relaxation that should usually accompany good sensuality.
It is not being suggested that there is one "kind" of sexual experience that is set in concrete as some kind of ideal. Each person must enjoy sex according to her/his own capacities and preferences. My objection is not to the fact that sex comes in many valid varieties, but that sex has been degraded by the deletion of Love.
*******
Of course, sex is largely biology. I have no objection to this; who could? But it has the human potential to be so much more-- to represent and symbolize the sacred, the deepest yearnings and highest aspirations. I believe that it is a degradation of a very high opportunity when people reduce sex to biosex. Of course, it is fun. Nature wanted us to keep "doing it." she made damn' sure that we would! And there is nothing wrong with the great joy that can come from playful and fun sex! But I object to using sex, or dismissing it, as biosex only. This is like using a fine and expensive sculpture for a coatrack. Or, it is like using a computer to type only fourletter expletives all day long, page after page. Or, it is like carelessly handling a fine diamond, so that you crack it, ruining its value and beauty.
Sex is a delightful and wonderful gift of nature, or God, or, Goddess, through nature.
Some of the early cultures had it right when they viewed sex as something to celebrate. But they went far too far in their orgies and total disrespect for women and for sex. For there is a galaxy of difference between Lovemaking and mere "f+++ing." And the distinction is in the attitude. Sex can be art, spirituality, Love, splendor, celebration,joy, sharing, communion, passion-- or, it can be mere "rutting." Since we cannot be totally reduced to "animals," in that word's most perjorative sense, it is a mistake to reduce sex to mere biosex, when it is more fun, and much richer, as both psychosex and pneumosex.
I wrote, "If sex becomes a mere toy, a plaything, and loses its seriousness, it can degenerate into a game of Monopoly, or just some other snore and yawn."
I cannot imagine anything more boring than a god who never plays. The god of mysticism is not the hyperanal Jehovah, who obviously hated sex from the beginning-- even though he, ostensibly, was its creator. It is because of the perceived antisexuality of the god that our culture has used sex so cynically; it has demoralized sex. Sex should be the ideal combination of joy and worship. No, it is not being implied that a couple should grimly pray before sex, or even formally address God at all. the "prayer" is the sex itself, if it comes from Love.
Imho, it is a tragedy that our culture has so thoroughly dissociated sex from Love. This is the real catastrophe, the real abuse. We have abandoned the nobility of fine sex, its elegance and refinement. That is why we have sex without Love, which is mere rape, and why we have the proliferation of pornography, including kiddie-porn. If we could readjust our society to a healthy and respectful view of sex, some of these problems would have much less impact.
Seeing sex as a form of worship could have this salutory effect on what would otherwise be only salacious. We could lift sex out of the "mire of animalism," and return it to Love, where it belongs. (There is nothing wrong with "animalsex," but if sex is reduced to only that, it is stripped of its rich poetic and spiritual heritage, and Love is torn away.
If you hold the same superhigh standards for "performance," for example, it acts against the perfect relaxation that should usually accompany good sensuality.
It is not being suggested that there is one "kind" of sexual experience that is set in concrete as some kind of ideal. Each person must enjoy sex according to her/his own capacities and preferences. My objection is not to the fact that sex comes in many valid varieties, but that sex has been degraded by the deletion of Love.
*******
Political Morality
The idea that America thrives on diversity is not a popular view during the attempted evolution of a neofascist state. "Uncle Sam" is evolving in some ugly and repellant ways, under the far right; but happily, these alterations do not seem irreversible. This view of diversity of thought has always seemed, imho, to be one of the healthiest facets of democracy. The jw cult also taught the horrors of mindless conformity, the death of creativity. Since human beings are intrinsically creative beings, it can also mean the death of productivity, and even of happiness. I have seem more, and more blatant and shameless, immorality in this present administration than ever before in our largely noble history. I am not anti-American,as many "liberals" are. But I believe that the most sincere form of patriotism is dissent, as long as it is constructive as well as critical. But a lot of criticism goes toward the false god worshipped by the extreme right; the right is wrong about its god. We do claim the right and power to kick out of our "personal" (experiential) realities any god of which we disapprove. And, since "Uncle Sam" and Jehovah are both monstergods, we prefer to live lives of interior peace in their absence. That by no means makes them "go away," and no sense of such megalomania exists. But we do have the delightful freedom of Mind to delete them from personal thought, contemplation, and even conscious awareness. This is with the faith that, someday, they will be "scoured out" of even the preconscious mind. then,later, they will be cleansed from the personal unconscious; and perhaps centuries after the beginning of the catharsis, they might be neutralized in the soulevel of Mind. That,at least, is the hope, after having worked for centuries on this cathartic project. Its real core-challenge is the defeat of fear. The "devil" is the conceptual opposite of Love, which is fear. This creation of support for fear, always scaring the public, proves that the work of extremists serves the false god of fear-- the "devil." If gods were really alive, and not just the product of distorted and woefully incompetent human imagination, would not many, if not most, be parasites? One actually wonders what real functions some gods fill; they seem to be all but worthless, if they do not call people to improve their lives, or their views of the universe. (Here, what is in mind is mostly the ancient forms, including various anthropomorphic forms, fertility deities, rain-makers, etc.) We do not see Love as a pure symbiont, for She does not really "need" us human beings, but we surely need Her. (Without human beings, the Love of Goddess could and would express in countless other lifeforms spread through the galaxies.
*******
*******
Justice, Death, Numbers, Dark Gods, Jehovah
As a principle of Mind, and creation of Love, justice must be r-real (real in Mind), although it is very, very rarely m-real (in the dreamworld). The accoutrements of justice are all m-real (dreamworld). But, at their best, they represent a higher reality, r-reality. A cross that is m-real represents Christianity, which is both r-real and m-real. Deep Lovemaking (m-real) symbolizes Mindlove (r-real) or the greater,wider principle of Love Itself (r-real).
Perhaps some things on this earth can be contextually "perfect." But many deny that any absolute r-perfection can exist in this m-world, and I am inclined to agree with them. Perhaps we can call the ideal justice r-justice. M-justice never equals r-justice. It is the same principle that we m-mystics never fully realize r-Mind or r-Love (our most sacred ideals) in the m-world. As a perfect, flawless abstract, the highest justice is not a part of the m-world. Still, what imperfect approximations that we can create via laws and restrictions are very good things for all of society.
Numbers can be argued to be either nature speaking (intrinsic to nature) or an overlay that the human mind as created as a tool to examine and understand nature. In complex geommetries, as the Greeks loved to note, there are indications that order is intrinsic to nature, not imposed by the human mind. I would have to answer that, in the abstract, numbers are intrinsic to things. If two birdsfly over, that number "2" was not arbitrarily created by the m-mind. Likewise, if a billion molecules are found in a solution. As archetypes, numbers are part of the Mind, intrinsically, and thus, would have to be r-real, imho. It seems that if numbers are intrinsic to the language (energy-patterns) of the Mind, then relationships between them, assuming that numbers mean quantity as they usually do, would have to be a part of r-reality. For this is part of the matrix-dream of Mind-- the skeletal or small set of principles upon which everything else is based. Numbers could never be so foundational, so directive, so intrinsic, were they mere m-phenomena.
The universal mystical view is that death is not absolutely r-bad. It is clearly m-bad in some ways, as it separates lovers, breaks hearts, and even drives some away from Love. But even if it does this, that is not r-bad. As a manifestation of the r-mind, death is close to equivalent to taking off an old shirt, and putting on a new one. (This is said in the Bhagavad-Gita.) When seen in its cosmic perspective, death is actually a very joyous liberation. It removes pains, suffering, agony, relationships of hatred, much bitterness, envy, much confusion, ignorance, all medical problems, a spectrum of brain-disorders, and many other hells. And, after you see its "negative good," by all that it takes away, you later see its positive good, by all that it gives. Mystics do not laugh at funerals, out of compassion. But death is the way that nature has created for us to leave this cycle of life behind. It is as natural as the blossoming of a rose in sunlight. In the egoself, it can still create fear of the unknown, but, in the deeper Self (soul) or deepest Self (Spirit), fear is totally absent.
This "dark side" was a way that Indians, Egyptians, Greeks, and other mythologizers revealed that the gods and goddesses do not always serve, or even support, human happiness. Indeed, many "demons" were actively and dynamically anti-human (or, anti-happiness.) So, Kali, for example, was m-dark from only the human perspective. She was not "dark" because of her connections with death. Or, at least, that was not the only reason. She was a violent and vicious force of nature. she was "dark" in the m-world as a tornado would be dark if it blew away your family, kids, grandkids, beloved pets, etc. None of this is truly r-dark, but the mythologizers were reacting from the m-world in their descriptions of the gods; if this had not been so, they would, and should, have represented the One by a blank sheet of paper as the Indescribable or the totally transcendental. All the gods and goddesses were symbols of the One's relationship with the m-world; hence, they were all m-illustrations or m-symbols.
The demon of Judaism was Mammon. He was the "god" of gold. This is a warning of something that people love to forget: Greed resists everything noble and divine in us, and in the cosmos.
What is most repulsive about Jehovah is that he is consistently immoral, out-of-control, a murderer of thousands, and generally, a fool without a clue. Jehovah never created any world, as he is a creation himself, and could not produce any r-world. And Jehovah is a part of the dream of the m-world, and so could not possibly be a creator of even that. He was a myth created by angry generals and frightened kings who did not have the spiritual sense that God gave a gnat!:) He is nothing at all like the One, not even comparable. Or, perhaps he could be vaguely comparable, but it would be as a bacterium to an elephant.
Perhaps some things on this earth can be contextually "perfect." But many deny that any absolute r-perfection can exist in this m-world, and I am inclined to agree with them. Perhaps we can call the ideal justice r-justice. M-justice never equals r-justice. It is the same principle that we m-mystics never fully realize r-Mind or r-Love (our most sacred ideals) in the m-world. As a perfect, flawless abstract, the highest justice is not a part of the m-world. Still, what imperfect approximations that we can create via laws and restrictions are very good things for all of society.
Numbers can be argued to be either nature speaking (intrinsic to nature) or an overlay that the human mind as created as a tool to examine and understand nature. In complex geommetries, as the Greeks loved to note, there are indications that order is intrinsic to nature, not imposed by the human mind. I would have to answer that, in the abstract, numbers are intrinsic to things. If two birdsfly over, that number "2" was not arbitrarily created by the m-mind. Likewise, if a billion molecules are found in a solution. As archetypes, numbers are part of the Mind, intrinsically, and thus, would have to be r-real, imho. It seems that if numbers are intrinsic to the language (energy-patterns) of the Mind, then relationships between them, assuming that numbers mean quantity as they usually do, would have to be a part of r-reality. For this is part of the matrix-dream of Mind-- the skeletal or small set of principles upon which everything else is based. Numbers could never be so foundational, so directive, so intrinsic, were they mere m-phenomena.
The universal mystical view is that death is not absolutely r-bad. It is clearly m-bad in some ways, as it separates lovers, breaks hearts, and even drives some away from Love. But even if it does this, that is not r-bad. As a manifestation of the r-mind, death is close to equivalent to taking off an old shirt, and putting on a new one. (This is said in the Bhagavad-Gita.) When seen in its cosmic perspective, death is actually a very joyous liberation. It removes pains, suffering, agony, relationships of hatred, much bitterness, envy, much confusion, ignorance, all medical problems, a spectrum of brain-disorders, and many other hells. And, after you see its "negative good," by all that it takes away, you later see its positive good, by all that it gives. Mystics do not laugh at funerals, out of compassion. But death is the way that nature has created for us to leave this cycle of life behind. It is as natural as the blossoming of a rose in sunlight. In the egoself, it can still create fear of the unknown, but, in the deeper Self (soul) or deepest Self (Spirit), fear is totally absent.
This "dark side" was a way that Indians, Egyptians, Greeks, and other mythologizers revealed that the gods and goddesses do not always serve, or even support, human happiness. Indeed, many "demons" were actively and dynamically anti-human (or, anti-happiness.) So, Kali, for example, was m-dark from only the human perspective. She was not "dark" because of her connections with death. Or, at least, that was not the only reason. She was a violent and vicious force of nature. she was "dark" in the m-world as a tornado would be dark if it blew away your family, kids, grandkids, beloved pets, etc. None of this is truly r-dark, but the mythologizers were reacting from the m-world in their descriptions of the gods; if this had not been so, they would, and should, have represented the One by a blank sheet of paper as the Indescribable or the totally transcendental. All the gods and goddesses were symbols of the One's relationship with the m-world; hence, they were all m-illustrations or m-symbols.
The demon of Judaism was Mammon. He was the "god" of gold. This is a warning of something that people love to forget: Greed resists everything noble and divine in us, and in the cosmos.
What is most repulsive about Jehovah is that he is consistently immoral, out-of-control, a murderer of thousands, and generally, a fool without a clue. Jehovah never created any world, as he is a creation himself, and could not produce any r-world. And Jehovah is a part of the dream of the m-world, and so could not possibly be a creator of even that. He was a myth created by angry generals and frightened kings who did not have the spiritual sense that God gave a gnat!:) He is nothing at all like the One, not even comparable. Or, perhaps he could be vaguely comparable, but it would be as a bacterium to an elephant.
US Speeds Bomb Delivery to Israel
This from Mike Gallagher:
US Speeds Bomb Delivery to Israel
BUSH CABAL'S 'SHOCK & AWE' THROUGH their master's plan--we are Israel's puppet. Israel is a superpower, and we have been relegated to lapdog. Bush, Putin, Blair, China, N.Korea stand back and give the Zionist Likudniks free reign to terrorize a defenseless people in Lebanon. After 18 years of earlier occupation, Beirut-- a cosmopolitan multi-ethnic city-- is returned to rubble. And apparently, it won't end there: They'll look for instigations, false flag operations, and push north through Syria--then Iran. And the world just doesn't care about Arab lives. They don't see the absolute U.S.-backed & -promoted carnage & insanity.
The Israeli's have been quietly slashing and burning through the Gaza's West Bank with new American weaponry that slices off the lower limbs of men, women & children.
The casualties are at a ten-to-one ratio (Arabs to Israelis). Unchanged from the last sixty years.
The American corporate media, including npr, are Pro-Israel all the way!! I can't believe the favoritism. But I shouldn't be surprised. Americans, including myself, don't have a clue what goes on there. The Jewish deaths are equally as tragic. Many Jewish scholars, from around the world, have spoken out--loudly. Many rabbis have also protested.
Most Jews here & in Israel are doves: 70-75%. They are like most Americans, and folks around the world. But, a small minority imposes a hawkish rule. This occurs both here & there. They are the ones who have the money and power--for now. And this nightmare will continue until the world is angry enough to say "Enough"! We have absolute strength in our numbers. When will we put an end to this insane Armeggeddonist neoconservative hegemony? When will we strike down this imperialistic hubris!!
War, Extremism, Courtesy, Friendship, Karma, and Earth
You must admit that being invaded by a greedy ruler , thirsty for oil, if not for blood, puts the pressure on the suffering people. This sickening war in Iraq makes me ashamed to be an American. Let us just say, for now, that I am an earther. For I am a citizen of the galaxy. I'm only part human. It is pleasant to contemplate being about only thirty percent human, and seventy percent Mind, although that is a little optimistic!:)
Part of a conquest of any nation is to demoralize it. Calling the resistance "subversives" "insurgency," or "patriots" can change everything in public perception. One thing is certain: The most proud and patriotic of Americans would certainly rush to fight against any invading force, with all their might, until they dropped dead, literally. It is easy for us to forget that the Iraqi patriots are also "defending the Homeland." In fact, in this war, they have been dismissed as nothing more than abstract statistics. Americans have not given them even minimal recognition as human beings with lives, and the "right to life."
These screwball extremists will resist stemcell research lest an embryo headed for the garbage is "abused," because it is "potential human life," but they do not value at all genuine human lives. Besides, if these rich conservatives are truly against abortion as a "dangerous evil," why are they not rushing, as they should be, to care for the underprivileged newborns of the world? A girl should be forced to bear a child, even of rape, they say, but only as long as she takes care of it. On the one hand, they damn abortion, and, on the other, damn welfare programs. You just cannot have it both ways.
Words are notoriously subjective, and I would not argue to defend one side or the other. I must certainly agree that, given a choice, I too would prefer respectful courtesy, rather than disrespectful courtesy-- easily an opportunity for hypocrisy or even cynical behavior (lying, abusing through gossip, and other insincereties). Respect does have a more solid and deeper ring to it than mere courtesy, which can often be very shallow. I suppose that I will,nonetheless, always be a respecter of courtesy and politeness, as a "lubricant" to human interactions, which are often fraught with
frictions of various kinds. But then again, I have discovered that, when a person has decided to set her face against you, courtesy actually has little practical power to change her mind.
I find this sad, and believe that, in the best of all worlds, people should eagerly respond to courtesy, as I believe that they should also respond to the treasure of friendship. Imho, friendship is a treasure-chest filled with large and beautiful emeralds, sapphires, rubies, and gold coins. It is severely undervalued in our society. For friendship is a gift that is both mutual and potentially eternal.
Since the mystic's guide is ideally compassion, the realization of the karmic causes of pain serve only to prevent her insanity; but they never create complacency or apathy to suffering. Indeed, the whole message of the Buddha concerned itself with suffering. It would be hopeless idealism, as well as rejection of unpleasant truth, to claim that human beings, as a species, had already "grown up" and "grown past their violent phase." That, as noted, might begin to appear on this poor little planet within the next couple of thousand years, but we are sadly far from it right now.
America might be the best and most noble experiment in history; yet even its record is very far from perfect, and, currently, is being sullied every day by greed. So, the mystic does her honest best to practice kindness and compassion, but she realizes always that the "world" is too big a project for any one person. So, she abandons some idealism for realism. You really cannot clean up a world until you start in your own back yard.
This earth will not be soon a planet of joy, Love, and peace. We learn some of these by being exposed to their opposites. "Strife" is as good a generic name for these collective tragedies as any other. Imho, this world will not be spiritually, emotionally, or mentally prepared to be a more evolved world until, by definition, its sentient inhabitants are more evolved.
Jesus said, "If you live by the sword, you will die by the sword," at least, in some life. And Lao Tzu writes, "A violent man shall die a violent death," at least, in some life. We still have thousands of years to "burn off" our old karma; and ignorant people are still running the karma-mills at fullest capacity even today. As Krishna states, only gnosis can and will free people from this terrible weight.
Early Christian gnostics shared the "good news" (evaggelion) that was the best news in the world. They knew of karma, of course, and their message was, "All your sins are forgiven" by a God of limitless grace.
We cannot solve even a simple biochallenge suchas the flu by pretending that it does not exist. This is even more true, imho, regarding deep psychosocial issues. But, once the flu is over, you do not continue to obsess about it and treat your illness forever. there comes an actual time for a solution and a cessation of ministrations. Again, Jesus said, "The sick are the ones who need a doctor," and it is the job of a conscientious teacher to be precisely such a doc. That is why, believe it or not, for they have lost most of the sense of the word much of the time, teachers are called "ministers." This does not mean "those who are adulated," but "those who serve." But, in the quest for the supreme ego, many have lost entirely the meaning of symbolic footwashing.
Part of a conquest of any nation is to demoralize it. Calling the resistance "subversives" "insurgency," or "patriots" can change everything in public perception. One thing is certain: The most proud and patriotic of Americans would certainly rush to fight against any invading force, with all their might, until they dropped dead, literally. It is easy for us to forget that the Iraqi patriots are also "defending the Homeland." In fact, in this war, they have been dismissed as nothing more than abstract statistics. Americans have not given them even minimal recognition as human beings with lives, and the "right to life."
These screwball extremists will resist stemcell research lest an embryo headed for the garbage is "abused," because it is "potential human life," but they do not value at all genuine human lives. Besides, if these rich conservatives are truly against abortion as a "dangerous evil," why are they not rushing, as they should be, to care for the underprivileged newborns of the world? A girl should be forced to bear a child, even of rape, they say, but only as long as she takes care of it. On the one hand, they damn abortion, and, on the other, damn welfare programs. You just cannot have it both ways.
Words are notoriously subjective, and I would not argue to defend one side or the other. I must certainly agree that, given a choice, I too would prefer respectful courtesy, rather than disrespectful courtesy-- easily an opportunity for hypocrisy or even cynical behavior (lying, abusing through gossip, and other insincereties). Respect does have a more solid and deeper ring to it than mere courtesy, which can often be very shallow. I suppose that I will,nonetheless, always be a respecter of courtesy and politeness, as a "lubricant" to human interactions, which are often fraught with
frictions of various kinds. But then again, I have discovered that, when a person has decided to set her face against you, courtesy actually has little practical power to change her mind.
I find this sad, and believe that, in the best of all worlds, people should eagerly respond to courtesy, as I believe that they should also respond to the treasure of friendship. Imho, friendship is a treasure-chest filled with large and beautiful emeralds, sapphires, rubies, and gold coins. It is severely undervalued in our society. For friendship is a gift that is both mutual and potentially eternal.
Since the mystic's guide is ideally compassion, the realization of the karmic causes of pain serve only to prevent her insanity; but they never create complacency or apathy to suffering. Indeed, the whole message of the Buddha concerned itself with suffering. It would be hopeless idealism, as well as rejection of unpleasant truth, to claim that human beings, as a species, had already "grown up" and "grown past their violent phase." That, as noted, might begin to appear on this poor little planet within the next couple of thousand years, but we are sadly far from it right now.
America might be the best and most noble experiment in history; yet even its record is very far from perfect, and, currently, is being sullied every day by greed. So, the mystic does her honest best to practice kindness and compassion, but she realizes always that the "world" is too big a project for any one person. So, she abandons some idealism for realism. You really cannot clean up a world until you start in your own back yard.
This earth will not be soon a planet of joy, Love, and peace. We learn some of these by being exposed to their opposites. "Strife" is as good a generic name for these collective tragedies as any other. Imho, this world will not be spiritually, emotionally, or mentally prepared to be a more evolved world until, by definition, its sentient inhabitants are more evolved.
Jesus said, "If you live by the sword, you will die by the sword," at least, in some life. And Lao Tzu writes, "A violent man shall die a violent death," at least, in some life. We still have thousands of years to "burn off" our old karma; and ignorant people are still running the karma-mills at fullest capacity even today. As Krishna states, only gnosis can and will free people from this terrible weight.
Early Christian gnostics shared the "good news" (evaggelion) that was the best news in the world. They knew of karma, of course, and their message was, "All your sins are forgiven" by a God of limitless grace.
We cannot solve even a simple biochallenge suchas the flu by pretending that it does not exist. This is even more true, imho, regarding deep psychosocial issues. But, once the flu is over, you do not continue to obsess about it and treat your illness forever. there comes an actual time for a solution and a cessation of ministrations. Again, Jesus said, "The sick are the ones who need a doctor," and it is the job of a conscientious teacher to be precisely such a doc. That is why, believe it or not, for they have lost most of the sense of the word much of the time, teachers are called "ministers." This does not mean "those who are adulated," but "those who serve." But, in the quest for the supreme ego, many have lost entirely the meaning of symbolic footwashing.
Sunday, July 23, 2006
Unconditional Love
Love is always unconditional. This means that it can never be earned. This is the exact kind of Love that we receive from the Absolute. The Mind loves us because It is Love Itself. Nothing that we can ever do can "earn" the beauty of this priceless Love. Also, nothing that we ever do, no matter how bad the mistake, can ever drive it away, or neutralize or cancel It.
When we decide to serve as a vehicle or vessel ("instrument") for Love, it flows through us effortlessly. This is the highest condition possible for a human being. It is the goal of every mystic, and is the ideal for every Christian.
This unconditional Love is of God, and a product of grace. It is not something that we must, or can, do. Instead of trying to "make it happen," we must simply "let it happen." We must get out of Love's way, and stop casting ego-shadows in the Light of Love. So, it is no effort for us personally; it is so easy as to be effortless, for God does all the work, as the highest Mind working within, and through, us.
So, if you give this Love to someone, and she changes into a "bad" person, this Love will not change. For if it changed, it would be "conditional," conditioned on her behavior. "Unconditional" means, "This Love will be given to you under any and all conditions."
When we decide to serve as a vehicle or vessel ("instrument") for Love, it flows through us effortlessly. This is the highest condition possible for a human being. It is the goal of every mystic, and is the ideal for every Christian.
This unconditional Love is of God, and a product of grace. It is not something that we must, or can, do. Instead of trying to "make it happen," we must simply "let it happen." We must get out of Love's way, and stop casting ego-shadows in the Light of Love. So, it is no effort for us personally; it is so easy as to be effortless, for God does all the work, as the highest Mind working within, and through, us.
So, if you give this Love to someone, and she changes into a "bad" person, this Love will not change. For if it changed, it would be "conditional," conditioned on her behavior. "Unconditional" means, "This Love will be given to you under any and all conditions."
Timefree is Guiltfree
Even the dream of being Julius Caesar or Abe Lincoln would be experienced only one now at a time. Mystics do not hold that there is no Flow in Mind. Quite the contrary; this Flow is a matrix-idea in mysticism. Also, mystics do not hold that time does not exist in the maya-world. As in your dream, things do happen sequentially, and they do take "time" to occur, in this world.
Still, even though "time" might be a mental sense (a sixth sense??), all time must, and can, be experienced (known) only in the now. It is both common sense and mystical understanding that both "past" and 'future" do not exist in the now.
This realization liberates mystics from guilt from the past and worry from the future. These are both ways of turning the mind over to fear, and are not viable options for the mystic. For fear is the only "devil," and fear is the conceptual opposite of Love.
Mystics do believe in recompense (repairing mistakes from the "past") and in remorse (regretting them). But we do not accept, or even believe in, guilt. In the history of the world, guilt has never improved a single person-- although remorse and recompense have improved many a life.
The mystic, living her "second" life in the world of maya, will even go so far as to make plans for the future. To live in a purely Mindworld does not make sense to the mystic. So, she accommodates the flow of time in her practical life, even though she knows that it has no independent or absolute r-reality.
A huge part of m-mysticism (that of maya) is m-accommodation to the boundaries imposed by m-illusion. Without this elastic accommodation and plasticity (adaptation), the mystic would live more like a turnip than like a sage. She must, for example, act in love for herself and others,and this, she must do in the context of a timeflow. Still, the realization of the single now keeps her mind simple and uncluttered, and the great Mind seeks minds of personal simplicity to use as Its instruments in this m-world.
We must avoid the stereotype of the mystic as a being who lives for, within, and according to abstract but unrealistic principles of Mind only. Although her realizations about Mind do provide her with several types and kinds of liberation (moksha), and help her lead a life of Love and service, as well as friendship, not every truth is immediately applicable to the reasonable adaptation to everyday m-life. For example, she knows that all evil is only m-real. But the very call to service as Love prevents her development of complacency, apathy, or inaction to help people and other creatures in suffering.
In a similar way, we must accommodate the flow of time. I wear a talking watch, and consult it several times a day because no one but the most selfish lives for the self alone. We must all live, and thus, time-coordinate, with other people. Far from dismissing their needs as illusions, the mystic is glad to try to help them fulfill their time-based needs. So, it looks as if we are back yet again to that old dichotomy so often discussed between us: Living in two worlds, the Mindworld and the dreamworld.
*******
Still, even though "time" might be a mental sense (a sixth sense??), all time must, and can, be experienced (known) only in the now. It is both common sense and mystical understanding that both "past" and 'future" do not exist in the now.
This realization liberates mystics from guilt from the past and worry from the future. These are both ways of turning the mind over to fear, and are not viable options for the mystic. For fear is the only "devil," and fear is the conceptual opposite of Love.
Mystics do believe in recompense (repairing mistakes from the "past") and in remorse (regretting them). But we do not accept, or even believe in, guilt. In the history of the world, guilt has never improved a single person-- although remorse and recompense have improved many a life.
The mystic, living her "second" life in the world of maya, will even go so far as to make plans for the future. To live in a purely Mindworld does not make sense to the mystic. So, she accommodates the flow of time in her practical life, even though she knows that it has no independent or absolute r-reality.
A huge part of m-mysticism (that of maya) is m-accommodation to the boundaries imposed by m-illusion. Without this elastic accommodation and plasticity (adaptation), the mystic would live more like a turnip than like a sage. She must, for example, act in love for herself and others,and this, she must do in the context of a timeflow. Still, the realization of the single now keeps her mind simple and uncluttered, and the great Mind seeks minds of personal simplicity to use as Its instruments in this m-world.
We must avoid the stereotype of the mystic as a being who lives for, within, and according to abstract but unrealistic principles of Mind only. Although her realizations about Mind do provide her with several types and kinds of liberation (moksha), and help her lead a life of Love and service, as well as friendship, not every truth is immediately applicable to the reasonable adaptation to everyday m-life. For example, she knows that all evil is only m-real. But the very call to service as Love prevents her development of complacency, apathy, or inaction to help people and other creatures in suffering.
In a similar way, we must accommodate the flow of time. I wear a talking watch, and consult it several times a day because no one but the most selfish lives for the self alone. We must all live, and thus, time-coordinate, with other people. Far from dismissing their needs as illusions, the mystic is glad to try to help them fulfill their time-based needs. So, it looks as if we are back yet again to that old dichotomy so often discussed between us: Living in two worlds, the Mindworld and the dreamworld.
*******
Love and Torture
As early as the year 200, the Church started its devolution from a "family of Love" into a formal public institution. It started to develop and cultivate a money-consciousness that contaminated everything.
This was the beginning of the Great Corruption, which peaked in 312, when the emperor Constantine made the religion of Christianity the "official" religion of the Roman Empire.
After that year, the Church started to own real estate, finance politicians, and even finance wars. In other words, it needed as much money as it could get, and it needed it as fast as possible.
After the Church had become an economic and political power, it lost all of its innocence, and much of its purity and Love. It had always been optional for Christians to come together into the joyful house-church. (For the first three centuries, Christians met in homes, and there were no "church-buildings.") Everyone loved these gatherings. Sometimes, meals were shared, and the gatherings were even called "Love-feasts." (This is what we do here every two weeks.)
The simple house-church did not need money, and did not collect it. For those early simple Christians had no need for ownership of real estate (land and buildings). But as the Church grew into a human-created institution, they needed the money of all the people all the time.
Church then, as now, was not really fun; people did not really want to attend-- or, at least, not always. The leaders went into a panic: they had to get the common people to attend and bring their money to support the Church. Love simply no longer worked to get people to come; almost no one came to Church because she loved it.
So, the devious, evil, and corrupt leaders had to come up with something that would force everybody to attend Church. And they tried fear, which always seemed to work better than Love with the common, uneducated people. Because these leaders were insane, they trumped up the most brutal, psychotic, and outrageous misrepresentation of God that the sick mind could conjure. These were the same "geniuses" who brought the world the nightmare of torture called the "Inquisition." So, their absence of sanity and compassion was obvious.
They transformed God from a Lord of Love, peace, and forgiveness into the utterly abominable tormenter of his own children. They turned the Lord of tender sweetness into the "monstergod." [They used the false god of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) to do this.]
This horror denied everything that Jesus had ever taught about God. For the God of Jesus, the true God, was nothing like the cultural and historical god of the Jews-- the Yahweh-Jehovah-myth of the ancient Israelis. They murdered him for exactly this reason: He was teaching a different God than the one in which they believed. So, they saw him as dangerous.
Indeed, a careful study of the teachings of Jesus presents a God who always is delighted and even eager to forgive his children-- as any kind, compassionate, and good parent would be. In hisoriginal message, Jesus could and would have mentioned eternal hellfire a thousand times if it were true. He would have warned his brothers out of his great Love. But, except in one parable (symbolic), he never once even warns us against this tortuous nightmare. And later scribes added much to his original teachings. So, we can and must decide what is authentic in the scriptures by using the yardstick of Love.
In modern politics, we justly reject the torture-mongers as spiritually arrested. People such as george bush and alberto gonzales do not represent the traditional compassion of the American people. And they are lightyears from the Way of Love, in Christianity. We are better than that, better than stooping to torture. And we are proud of a record where torture is largely absent. And we are ashamed of our leaders who defend torture, for this is truly shameful and even subhuman. And how much above these corrupt leaders is the stainless, perfect, flawless Lord of Love! He would and could never stoop to the nightmares of the Inquisition or the torture-rooms of evil and despised torturers. In fact, to believe in an everlasting hellfire is a real form of betrayal of Love, and hence, of blasphemy.
*******
This was the beginning of the Great Corruption, which peaked in 312, when the emperor Constantine made the religion of Christianity the "official" religion of the Roman Empire.
After that year, the Church started to own real estate, finance politicians, and even finance wars. In other words, it needed as much money as it could get, and it needed it as fast as possible.
After the Church had become an economic and political power, it lost all of its innocence, and much of its purity and Love. It had always been optional for Christians to come together into the joyful house-church. (For the first three centuries, Christians met in homes, and there were no "church-buildings.") Everyone loved these gatherings. Sometimes, meals were shared, and the gatherings were even called "Love-feasts." (This is what we do here every two weeks.)
The simple house-church did not need money, and did not collect it. For those early simple Christians had no need for ownership of real estate (land and buildings). But as the Church grew into a human-created institution, they needed the money of all the people all the time.
Church then, as now, was not really fun; people did not really want to attend-- or, at least, not always. The leaders went into a panic: they had to get the common people to attend and bring their money to support the Church. Love simply no longer worked to get people to come; almost no one came to Church because she loved it.
So, the devious, evil, and corrupt leaders had to come up with something that would force everybody to attend Church. And they tried fear, which always seemed to work better than Love with the common, uneducated people. Because these leaders were insane, they trumped up the most brutal, psychotic, and outrageous misrepresentation of God that the sick mind could conjure. These were the same "geniuses" who brought the world the nightmare of torture called the "Inquisition." So, their absence of sanity and compassion was obvious.
They transformed God from a Lord of Love, peace, and forgiveness into the utterly abominable tormenter of his own children. They turned the Lord of tender sweetness into the "monstergod." [They used the false god of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) to do this.]
This horror denied everything that Jesus had ever taught about God. For the God of Jesus, the true God, was nothing like the cultural and historical god of the Jews-- the Yahweh-Jehovah-myth of the ancient Israelis. They murdered him for exactly this reason: He was teaching a different God than the one in which they believed. So, they saw him as dangerous.
Indeed, a careful study of the teachings of Jesus presents a God who always is delighted and even eager to forgive his children-- as any kind, compassionate, and good parent would be. In hisoriginal message, Jesus could and would have mentioned eternal hellfire a thousand times if it were true. He would have warned his brothers out of his great Love. But, except in one parable (symbolic), he never once even warns us against this tortuous nightmare. And later scribes added much to his original teachings. So, we can and must decide what is authentic in the scriptures by using the yardstick of Love.
In modern politics, we justly reject the torture-mongers as spiritually arrested. People such as george bush and alberto gonzales do not represent the traditional compassion of the American people. And they are lightyears from the Way of Love, in Christianity. We are better than that, better than stooping to torture. And we are proud of a record where torture is largely absent. And we are ashamed of our leaders who defend torture, for this is truly shameful and even subhuman. And how much above these corrupt leaders is the stainless, perfect, flawless Lord of Love! He would and could never stoop to the nightmares of the Inquisition or the torture-rooms of evil and despised torturers. In fact, to believe in an everlasting hellfire is a real form of betrayal of Love, and hence, of blasphemy.
*******
A Little More Buddhism, and Good Mistakes
The tathagatagarbha is the potential buddha in everyone/everything. The alaya-vijnana is the store-consciousness, or "warehouse" of information in the deep Unconscious. I believe that this concept emerged in Buddhism from the older Hindu concept of akasha, a collective area of the Unconscious, worldmind, or world-soul, which was reputed to have contained every word ever spoken and every thought ever thought-- not only by earthers, but by all sentient lifeforms in the galaxies. The "tathagata" means he who thus comes, a common title for Buddha. Also, this is a great reminder of the simplicity of the Buddhamind, as the Sanskrit is thought perhaps to have imitated the simple sounds of toddlers. It is correct to use "the Buddha" only with the definite article, as "Buddha" is not a name, but a position in the scale of enlightenment. This is similar to some writers' preference for "the Christ" over "Christ."
We all have some unwelcome flaws in our "tapestries." This is like the famous carpets of the Islamic people, always having a flaw deliberately created in their beautiful patterns to remind everyone that "no one is perfect but Allah." Personally, imperfections and neural deletions emerge like a wounded appendage from this mind, and it needs no further reminders. This occurs with such regularity and rapidity at times that it reminds that "imperfection is the name of the game." for it is only by our lacunas and frequent inadequacies that we are triggered to learn and grow. Mystics teach, in essence, that mistakes are good; for they offer our only opportunity to grow. They hold our only hope for progress.:)
We all have some unwelcome flaws in our "tapestries." This is like the famous carpets of the Islamic people, always having a flaw deliberately created in their beautiful patterns to remind everyone that "no one is perfect but Allah." Personally, imperfections and neural deletions emerge like a wounded appendage from this mind, and it needs no further reminders. This occurs with such regularity and rapidity at times that it reminds that "imperfection is the name of the game." for it is only by our lacunas and frequent inadequacies that we are triggered to learn and grow. Mystics teach, in essence, that mistakes are good; for they offer our only opportunity to grow. They hold our only hope for progress.:)
Intro to "Eternal Now"
According to the mystical tradition that is embraced here, "time" does not really exist. It is an imaginary extrapolation of that which does exist. That which does exist is the "eternal now."
The "past" is illusion because it is dead, the "future" because it is not yet born. this applies to .0000001 second ago, or .000000001 second from now. The only "point in time" that actually exists is this "now." And this one, now. And now. And now.
There are not several "nows," like pearls on a string, although it might seem to be so. There is just one now. And it is now.
The "now" appears to be swallowed by the past, but it is not. This is a paradox, as in neophysics. For this "now" is so tiny that you cannot capture it even within the mind. For, as soon as you think "now," it seems to be gone, sucked into the "past." But a little thought will show that it is not gone at all. For it is still now.
Mystics are ultrarealists. they do not waste time in the double-illusion of past and future. when you have something that needs to be done or said, now is the only time that you can do or say it.
Again paradoxically, this makes mystics ultrarealists, even though their very deep spiritual tradition is famous (or notorious) for dreaming. It is only within the world of the dream that we create a subdream called "time." A higher reality, taught by Jesus, is the "timeless" life.
The Greek adjective aionian is most often mistranslated "everlasting" in most translations, making the promised reward of Jesus "everlasting" life. But this makes absolutely no sense if he knew (and he did) that life was, by its very intrinsic nature, already "everlasting. So, the interior Master Christ calls us, through Jesus (and others) to a "timeless" life. Time does not go more quickly or more slowly in this kind of life; it simply does not exist.
Believing in the "eternal now" allows one to give all her timenergy, concentration, and attention to what she is doing right now. Writing this letter is an example of this kind of focus. What is right in front of you at the moment is "God's assignment," "your soul's task," your mission, in life. More than one ancient mystic has written, therefore, "Do whatever you do, as unto the Lord." That means, do it with unbroken, undistracted focus. Treat each task as sacred. Find as many "tasks of Love" as possible. Every act of Love is an act of worship, and every thought of Love a true prayer.
Doing one thing at a time, and giving it your very best, makes life --this life-- far richer, each moment touched with sacred beauty. It awakens you to a fuller potential, and actually allows you to get more accomplished. This is especially so if you combine it with the attitude of karmayoga. In this mental "yoga" or mysticism, you do not work for any results ever. Instead of trying to get results, you view your work as a sacred "sacrifice" of energy to the Lord of Love. We are not used to this, but seeing the work itself as sacred can improve our lives. This can have almost miraculous effects upon the mind.
For example, if you do not work for results, but see the work itself only as sacred, you can write many pages, only to discover that your computer has "eaten" all of them. They were all "eaten by cyberspace." Because you know that the work itself is/was sacred, and you were not working for results, you can continue in equanimity, without losing it and blowing up. If you decide to try this, you will find that the resulting tranquility is enormous.:)
*******
The "past" is illusion because it is dead, the "future" because it is not yet born. this applies to .0000001 second ago, or .000000001 second from now. The only "point in time" that actually exists is this "now." And this one, now. And now. And now.
There are not several "nows," like pearls on a string, although it might seem to be so. There is just one now. And it is now.
The "now" appears to be swallowed by the past, but it is not. This is a paradox, as in neophysics. For this "now" is so tiny that you cannot capture it even within the mind. For, as soon as you think "now," it seems to be gone, sucked into the "past." But a little thought will show that it is not gone at all. For it is still now.
Mystics are ultrarealists. they do not waste time in the double-illusion of past and future. when you have something that needs to be done or said, now is the only time that you can do or say it.
Again paradoxically, this makes mystics ultrarealists, even though their very deep spiritual tradition is famous (or notorious) for dreaming. It is only within the world of the dream that we create a subdream called "time." A higher reality, taught by Jesus, is the "timeless" life.
The Greek adjective aionian is most often mistranslated "everlasting" in most translations, making the promised reward of Jesus "everlasting" life. But this makes absolutely no sense if he knew (and he did) that life was, by its very intrinsic nature, already "everlasting. So, the interior Master Christ calls us, through Jesus (and others) to a "timeless" life. Time does not go more quickly or more slowly in this kind of life; it simply does not exist.
Believing in the "eternal now" allows one to give all her timenergy, concentration, and attention to what she is doing right now. Writing this letter is an example of this kind of focus. What is right in front of you at the moment is "God's assignment," "your soul's task," your mission, in life. More than one ancient mystic has written, therefore, "Do whatever you do, as unto the Lord." That means, do it with unbroken, undistracted focus. Treat each task as sacred. Find as many "tasks of Love" as possible. Every act of Love is an act of worship, and every thought of Love a true prayer.
Doing one thing at a time, and giving it your very best, makes life --this life-- far richer, each moment touched with sacred beauty. It awakens you to a fuller potential, and actually allows you to get more accomplished. This is especially so if you combine it with the attitude of karmayoga. In this mental "yoga" or mysticism, you do not work for any results ever. Instead of trying to get results, you view your work as a sacred "sacrifice" of energy to the Lord of Love. We are not used to this, but seeing the work itself as sacred can improve our lives. This can have almost miraculous effects upon the mind.
For example, if you do not work for results, but see the work itself only as sacred, you can write many pages, only to discover that your computer has "eaten" all of them. They were all "eaten by cyberspace." Because you know that the work itself is/was sacred, and you were not working for results, you can continue in equanimity, without losing it and blowing up. If you decide to try this, you will find that the resulting tranquility is enormous.:)
*******
Goddesses
Due to their eternal emphasis on Love, tenderness, gentleness, and the sustaining and gentle nature of the One, mystics usually favor Goddesses over Gods to represent the Absolute. This is a wonderful tradition. Their alltime favorites were the Lovegoddesses,predictably.
They especially loved Aphrodite. I am aware that a few of the rites of some Lovegoddesses were often very sexual in nature, and mystics do not practice sexual promiscuity. But mystics tend to interpret Lovegoddesses, rather deliberately, as goddesses of sexual Love, and the many other forms of Love-- Love of nature, of friends, of neighbor, of God, of the whole cosmos. Goddesses make much more beautiful and attractive images of ideal Love than was ever achieved by any of the male "gods" of antiquity and legend. With such deities as Shiva, the Hindus, typically, tried to get the best of both: He was an androgyne, half and
half.
Nice compromise, but still, the sweetness and tenderness of the feamale nature are preferred. But then, again, you have the dangerous Kali, so there is perhaps no absolute good in the dreamworld. Still, the spectrumof goddesses is a lovely symbol of divine Love-- as, for example, those from India.
The Indians seem to have been the supreme mythologizers of history. They were not polytheists, but rather, polymorphic monotheists, as all the gods and goddesses represented aspects of the One,
Brahman.
At one time, their beautiful mythology contained 330 million gods and goddesses-- more than there were worshippers!
Anyway, the goddesses of Greek mythology embody the finest of all forms of Love, and there are many. Life is certainly more beautiful, and more interesting, than it ever was when I was limited by a (not optimal) god.
They especially loved Aphrodite. I am aware that a few of the rites of some Lovegoddesses were often very sexual in nature, and mystics do not practice sexual promiscuity. But mystics tend to interpret Lovegoddesses, rather deliberately, as goddesses of sexual Love, and the many other forms of Love-- Love of nature, of friends, of neighbor, of God, of the whole cosmos. Goddesses make much more beautiful and attractive images of ideal Love than was ever achieved by any of the male "gods" of antiquity and legend. With such deities as Shiva, the Hindus, typically, tried to get the best of both: He was an androgyne, half and
half.
Nice compromise, but still, the sweetness and tenderness of the feamale nature are preferred. But then, again, you have the dangerous Kali, so there is perhaps no absolute good in the dreamworld. Still, the spectrumof goddesses is a lovely symbol of divine Love-- as, for example, those from India.
The Indians seem to have been the supreme mythologizers of history. They were not polytheists, but rather, polymorphic monotheists, as all the gods and goddesses represented aspects of the One,
Brahman.
At one time, their beautiful mythology contained 330 million gods and goddesses-- more than there were worshippers!
Anyway, the goddesses of Greek mythology embody the finest of all forms of Love, and there are many. Life is certainly more beautiful, and more interesting, than it ever was when I was limited by a (not optimal) god.
Mental Influence Limited; "Born Again"
The Christian Scriptures do imply that faith has great power. Some people make the false assumption that they can do anything, if only they can "talk themselves" into "believing. But, of course, you cannot "talk your way" into faith. Faith is a decision made at a very deep level of the Unconscious. It is a gift from God, through the deepest Mind.
These people are scared to death of life, and trying like mad to control everything. this is because they have no faith. This is the opposite of the mystical view, which says, "Trust and let God be God," and says always to God, "Thy will be done."
But this cranky and unspiritual attitude of positive thinking and visualization tries to take away God's job of running the cosmos. Some people are so arrogant that they actually believe that the divine Power needs their guidance.
This is only a version of wishful thinking. Psychologists call it "magical" thinking. Most healthy people outgrow this kind of fantasy-thinking by age seven or so, but some do not. They are always, again, antimystically, trying to "take over" and "control" the universe.
They speak in hushed and awed tones of the "power of Mind," and often imply that they can do anything. But, when put to the test, they often grow suddenly quiet, or even embarrassed. It was Jesus who said that people could not change the color of a single hair on their own heads. So, please test these people with their amazing claims: Ask them to change the color of a single hair upon their own heads.
Lao Tzu, Jesus, and the other great saints, sages, teachers, and mystics of history tell us to turn away from this dangerous and wrong
misunderstanding.
*******
Being "Born Again"
*******
The experience of being "born again" is a completely mental and spiritual one. It does not usually create somatic (bodily) sensations, and it is not designed to do that. With strong emotions, however, there are often some physical sensations-- a feeling of chills, warmth, or tears, for example, can come with this experience. But the intended effect is on the transformation of the mind. People who get caught up in somatic sensations, and who compare notes, are not striving for Love, but merely for "bragging rights." Anyone who boasts about her experience is betraying it.
These people are scared to death of life, and trying like mad to control everything. this is because they have no faith. This is the opposite of the mystical view, which says, "Trust and let God be God," and says always to God, "Thy will be done."
But this cranky and unspiritual attitude of positive thinking and visualization tries to take away God's job of running the cosmos. Some people are so arrogant that they actually believe that the divine Power needs their guidance.
This is only a version of wishful thinking. Psychologists call it "magical" thinking. Most healthy people outgrow this kind of fantasy-thinking by age seven or so, but some do not. They are always, again, antimystically, trying to "take over" and "control" the universe.
They speak in hushed and awed tones of the "power of Mind," and often imply that they can do anything. But, when put to the test, they often grow suddenly quiet, or even embarrassed. It was Jesus who said that people could not change the color of a single hair on their own heads. So, please test these people with their amazing claims: Ask them to change the color of a single hair upon their own heads.
Lao Tzu, Jesus, and the other great saints, sages, teachers, and mystics of history tell us to turn away from this dangerous and wrong
misunderstanding.
*******
Being "Born Again"
*******
The experience of being "born again" is a completely mental and spiritual one. It does not usually create somatic (bodily) sensations, and it is not designed to do that. With strong emotions, however, there are often some physical sensations-- a feeling of chills, warmth, or tears, for example, can come with this experience. But the intended effect is on the transformation of the mind. People who get caught up in somatic sensations, and who compare notes, are not striving for Love, but merely for "bragging rights." Anyone who boasts about her experience is betraying it.
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Good and Evil: More Depth
Mystics believe that the arche (basic principle behind the cosmos; Mind) is entirely good, as perfect Lovemind. The strategy or tactic for dealing with "evil" is to say that it is a label created by misunderstanding, by limited spiritual vision. For, when interpreted as an expression of the larger spiritual picture as "karma," all "evil" has its place.
This goes back to the principle of free will. A complex cosmos does not usually yield simple answers, no matter how much we might wish to the contrary. So, God(dess) decided, in the beginning, to create creatures with free will. Being absolutely free Herself, She was able to grant full freedom to each and every one of her "sub-minds" within Her great Mind.
That is when this cosmos really gets interesting. For beings of enormous Power and infinite free will were able to do whatever they chose to do. These were also beings of great and trustworthy wisdom. So, they dove into the dreamworld realizing fully that nothing could ever change them
or alter their pristine spiritual nature. They had fullest confidence in their ability to recover from,to break out of, whatever condition that they created. Nothing could ever harm or hurt them.
But the "virtual reality" of this dreamworld was a little too perfect. It drew them in, as in a deep sleep, and fooled them. They grew to believe that they were awake when they were asleep, and that the dreamworld was the real world. This is why Genesis says that Jehovah (the god of illusion) put "Adam" into a deep sleep, but it never says that he woke up.
When combined with the selfhypnotic amnesia selfinduced, it created a terrific blow to the knowing stability upon which they had relied as souls. This was, of course, the full intent; no game would ever be exciting unless and until they could forget that they were invincible and invulnerable, that nothing in the dreamworld could ever touch them.
So, in utter delusion, they dreamed the worst fate possible: Complete oblivion, non-existence, death of mind and consciousness, return to nothing. This was such high stakes that it made the game incomprehensibly exciting.
Of course, each time that they died to the physical world, they remembered that they were everlasting, megapowerful, nonphysical Souls. And so,at the beginning of each life, the forgetting had to be reintroduced and reinforced hypnotically; now, at every birth, the new
baby is wiped almost completely clean of all memories. For had the memory of having been powerful souls come back with them,the game would be over.
Mystics say that karma exists, in r-reality because it is the creator or dreamer of m-reality. Karma is a great plus to the cosmos. It creates education for even the most evil and ignorant. It is the medium, in fact, by which the entire cosmos will be rescued from avidya, or ignorance, and hence, from all evil behavior. so, it would be inaccurate to say that karma is "evil."
Karma is the gift of the soul and Spirit, a gift to Her children that will impel them into growth and wisdom. So, not only is karma not evil; it is a definite and positive good.
But, it might be argued, karma creates evil. It does indeed create war, violence, abuse, harm, hurt, deliberate pain. But, these must not be seen simply, as through the human perspective. the cosmos is a very sophisticated "place." It is not a place, or state, of simple "black and white," "either-or" thinking. Instead, what is truly "bad" from one perspective can be good from another.
When the mystic discusses good and evil, in the moral sense, she is more conscientious, and more limited, than the average person. She is regulated by a more strict conscience. She must be, for shehas given up regulation by "external," human, or religious law. So, she will be careful to obey speedlimit laws, for example, while these are laughingly considered optional by most persons. She will avoid not only sexual activity that betrays Love, but will not even flirt with behaviors that lead down that painfilled path. She is ultracautious never to cause harm to any living creature-- not physical, emotional, mental, or spiritual harm. Ahimsa is a major guiding principle in her life.
But when we discuss matters of existential good and evil, this is where she uses the sliding scale of shifting perspectives. So, although she refuses to believe in moral relativity, being guided by the absolute of ahimsa, she recognizes that, as an overall perspective, conditions or events might appear evil from one perspective, but be good from a larger or expanded one.
The mystic must be always guided by Love. So, she will never use these principles to justify apathy or rationalize complacency. She can never be apathetic or complacent, for Love forces her to act whenever any creature is suffering.
She must act, is compelled to act, for Love. she must strive to alleviate suffering whenever she finds it, in any sentient creature. Still the basic problem remains: How can Love possibly be in charge of a world in which there is so much misery, unfairness, unkindness, cruelty, and evil?
This she explains entirely by karma. No soul will ever experience any event which she has not "predesigned" into her karma. Some, indeed much, must be experienced because she previously gave suffering to another soul; this is reflexive karma. Other karma is not simply reflexive or reflective; it is chosen and optional.
Many great mystics have incarnated into imperfect bodies in order to sharpen some spiritual quality. They had no reflexive karma, but chose those bodies to sharpen a spiritual characteristic.
The most horrific event can be interpreted as the outworking of karma in a just and balanced cosmos. And, since karma is the outworking of Love, even the most ghastly events can be seen as balancing the cosmic Mind, and not as sheer "evil." For there is a huge difference between "evil"
and "achieving cosmic balance."
Although karma is the will of Love, it is not always Its active will; usually, it is the permissive will of Love. (This is always so when people suffer.) But the great Mind is not deliberately creative of all this karma. For much karma is automatic, built into the laws of the world, as gravity is: Good automatically produces good, and evil, evil. In the outworking of karma, there is no interventionistic God manipulating things and events. Karma is not even dreamed up by the cosmic Mind, but rather, by the lower Soulmind.
There would seem to be two ways of attempting to solve it: The mystic says that this is r-true (true inMind), but certainly not m-true (true in illusion). She never claims that "evil" is "mere illusion," which grants the lower nature a means to do whatever it wants, no matter how it harms others or the self. for evil is real; it exists in most minds; it is absent in only perfect, stainless Mind, the One.
From the cosmic perspective, this is real and true. It is as real as the neophysics claim that there is not a "solid" object in all of creation. But the problem of evil is not solved in any way by simply dismissing it. Instead, it must be actively countered or neutralized at every step by kindness, goodness, compassion, and the family of Love-qualities. Love erases evil, and, when complete, erases even karma.
The mystic could also agree that evil is a partial eclipse, or partial absence, of God, Mind, or Love. But she must insist that no event or being in the entire cosmos can exist without some "particle" of God within, so that Light can never be wholly or totally absent in any location; God is omnipresent.
The mystic also uses a similar argument, that the "bad" is not "absolutely bad." It has some redeeming qualities. For it requires a very rare overview to be able to see the "good" within all karma. Without this perfect interior vision, the mystic can and must only reassure herself that all karma is serving Love. For it serves the Love-education of all souls. And some souls learn easily and quickly, but not all do. Learning important answers is not always a gentle art, as it becomes for one who has learned to listen. For these reasons, a truly enlightened soul will never fall into the dangerous snare of amorality (no moral standards) or immorality (distortion of true moral standards), but will be guided by a stronger and more immediate and helpful standard of morality (goodness.)
The mystic does not try to "justify" evil, as in the rationalizations of the psychotic zombie-nazis. The mystic recognizes evil as m-real, and struggles hard to explain it rather than "explain it away." Mystics are realists, and must encompas evil in any cosmic understanding.
This notion that good and evil must come as a pair is not a sophisticated explanation. In stead, it is more an absence of any real explanation. It might be the last resort of those who have no fuller or deeper explanations.
The mystic could indeed concur that freedom, or free will, is indeed crucially important. It is so important that it can explain most of the gargantuan "evil" in this m-world. This is the deeper meaning of the words of Christ, "You will know Reality [the truth], and Reality [the truth] will set you free." Freedom, even on a personal level, is one of the very pillars of mysticism. To grow up, to fully develop, as a free being, is what the cosmic Journey is all about.
The belief that "evil" exists to create courage or strengths is a fairly shallow argument, a red herring that distracts from the real issue. It is not feasible to suggest that babies are slaughtered, little girls raped, or good men tortured, to provide "contrast" or "temptations." These horrors call for a more substantial explanation, one rooted in the very foundation of the cosmos itself-- deeply, in other words, in Mind.
The thought that good could not exist without evil is not a deep or complete enough explanation. For the contrast-factor is unneeded. One simply does not have to fall down before she realizes that she is being lifted into the air. One does not have to be celebate for years to enjoy an amazing sexual experience. One does not have nearly to die of thirst to appreciate a good drink, nor starve to appreciate delicious flavors. This is "extremist thinking," not valid explanation.
*******
This goes back to the principle of free will. A complex cosmos does not usually yield simple answers, no matter how much we might wish to the contrary. So, God(dess) decided, in the beginning, to create creatures with free will. Being absolutely free Herself, She was able to grant full freedom to each and every one of her "sub-minds" within Her great Mind.
That is when this cosmos really gets interesting. For beings of enormous Power and infinite free will were able to do whatever they chose to do. These were also beings of great and trustworthy wisdom. So, they dove into the dreamworld realizing fully that nothing could ever change them
or alter their pristine spiritual nature. They had fullest confidence in their ability to recover from,to break out of, whatever condition that they created. Nothing could ever harm or hurt them.
But the "virtual reality" of this dreamworld was a little too perfect. It drew them in, as in a deep sleep, and fooled them. They grew to believe that they were awake when they were asleep, and that the dreamworld was the real world. This is why Genesis says that Jehovah (the god of illusion) put "Adam" into a deep sleep, but it never says that he woke up.
When combined with the selfhypnotic amnesia selfinduced, it created a terrific blow to the knowing stability upon which they had relied as souls. This was, of course, the full intent; no game would ever be exciting unless and until they could forget that they were invincible and invulnerable, that nothing in the dreamworld could ever touch them.
So, in utter delusion, they dreamed the worst fate possible: Complete oblivion, non-existence, death of mind and consciousness, return to nothing. This was such high stakes that it made the game incomprehensibly exciting.
Of course, each time that they died to the physical world, they remembered that they were everlasting, megapowerful, nonphysical Souls. And so,at the beginning of each life, the forgetting had to be reintroduced and reinforced hypnotically; now, at every birth, the new
baby is wiped almost completely clean of all memories. For had the memory of having been powerful souls come back with them,the game would be over.
Mystics say that karma exists, in r-reality because it is the creator or dreamer of m-reality. Karma is a great plus to the cosmos. It creates education for even the most evil and ignorant. It is the medium, in fact, by which the entire cosmos will be rescued from avidya, or ignorance, and hence, from all evil behavior. so, it would be inaccurate to say that karma is "evil."
Karma is the gift of the soul and Spirit, a gift to Her children that will impel them into growth and wisdom. So, not only is karma not evil; it is a definite and positive good.
But, it might be argued, karma creates evil. It does indeed create war, violence, abuse, harm, hurt, deliberate pain. But, these must not be seen simply, as through the human perspective. the cosmos is a very sophisticated "place." It is not a place, or state, of simple "black and white," "either-or" thinking. Instead, what is truly "bad" from one perspective can be good from another.
When the mystic discusses good and evil, in the moral sense, she is more conscientious, and more limited, than the average person. She is regulated by a more strict conscience. She must be, for shehas given up regulation by "external," human, or religious law. So, she will be careful to obey speedlimit laws, for example, while these are laughingly considered optional by most persons. She will avoid not only sexual activity that betrays Love, but will not even flirt with behaviors that lead down that painfilled path. She is ultracautious never to cause harm to any living creature-- not physical, emotional, mental, or spiritual harm. Ahimsa is a major guiding principle in her life.
But when we discuss matters of existential good and evil, this is where she uses the sliding scale of shifting perspectives. So, although she refuses to believe in moral relativity, being guided by the absolute of ahimsa, she recognizes that, as an overall perspective, conditions or events might appear evil from one perspective, but be good from a larger or expanded one.
The mystic must be always guided by Love. So, she will never use these principles to justify apathy or rationalize complacency. She can never be apathetic or complacent, for Love forces her to act whenever any creature is suffering.
She must act, is compelled to act, for Love. she must strive to alleviate suffering whenever she finds it, in any sentient creature. Still the basic problem remains: How can Love possibly be in charge of a world in which there is so much misery, unfairness, unkindness, cruelty, and evil?
This she explains entirely by karma. No soul will ever experience any event which she has not "predesigned" into her karma. Some, indeed much, must be experienced because she previously gave suffering to another soul; this is reflexive karma. Other karma is not simply reflexive or reflective; it is chosen and optional.
Many great mystics have incarnated into imperfect bodies in order to sharpen some spiritual quality. They had no reflexive karma, but chose those bodies to sharpen a spiritual characteristic.
The most horrific event can be interpreted as the outworking of karma in a just and balanced cosmos. And, since karma is the outworking of Love, even the most ghastly events can be seen as balancing the cosmic Mind, and not as sheer "evil." For there is a huge difference between "evil"
and "achieving cosmic balance."
Although karma is the will of Love, it is not always Its active will; usually, it is the permissive will of Love. (This is always so when people suffer.) But the great Mind is not deliberately creative of all this karma. For much karma is automatic, built into the laws of the world, as gravity is: Good automatically produces good, and evil, evil. In the outworking of karma, there is no interventionistic God manipulating things and events. Karma is not even dreamed up by the cosmic Mind, but rather, by the lower Soulmind.
There would seem to be two ways of attempting to solve it: The mystic says that this is r-true (true inMind), but certainly not m-true (true in illusion). She never claims that "evil" is "mere illusion," which grants the lower nature a means to do whatever it wants, no matter how it harms others or the self. for evil is real; it exists in most minds; it is absent in only perfect, stainless Mind, the One.
From the cosmic perspective, this is real and true. It is as real as the neophysics claim that there is not a "solid" object in all of creation. But the problem of evil is not solved in any way by simply dismissing it. Instead, it must be actively countered or neutralized at every step by kindness, goodness, compassion, and the family of Love-qualities. Love erases evil, and, when complete, erases even karma.
The mystic could also agree that evil is a partial eclipse, or partial absence, of God, Mind, or Love. But she must insist that no event or being in the entire cosmos can exist without some "particle" of God within, so that Light can never be wholly or totally absent in any location; God is omnipresent.
The mystic also uses a similar argument, that the "bad" is not "absolutely bad." It has some redeeming qualities. For it requires a very rare overview to be able to see the "good" within all karma. Without this perfect interior vision, the mystic can and must only reassure herself that all karma is serving Love. For it serves the Love-education of all souls. And some souls learn easily and quickly, but not all do. Learning important answers is not always a gentle art, as it becomes for one who has learned to listen. For these reasons, a truly enlightened soul will never fall into the dangerous snare of amorality (no moral standards) or immorality (distortion of true moral standards), but will be guided by a stronger and more immediate and helpful standard of morality (goodness.)
The mystic does not try to "justify" evil, as in the rationalizations of the psychotic zombie-nazis. The mystic recognizes evil as m-real, and struggles hard to explain it rather than "explain it away." Mystics are realists, and must encompas evil in any cosmic understanding.
This notion that good and evil must come as a pair is not a sophisticated explanation. In stead, it is more an absence of any real explanation. It might be the last resort of those who have no fuller or deeper explanations.
The mystic could indeed concur that freedom, or free will, is indeed crucially important. It is so important that it can explain most of the gargantuan "evil" in this m-world. This is the deeper meaning of the words of Christ, "You will know Reality [the truth], and Reality [the truth] will set you free." Freedom, even on a personal level, is one of the very pillars of mysticism. To grow up, to fully develop, as a free being, is what the cosmic Journey is all about.
The belief that "evil" exists to create courage or strengths is a fairly shallow argument, a red herring that distracts from the real issue. It is not feasible to suggest that babies are slaughtered, little girls raped, or good men tortured, to provide "contrast" or "temptations." These horrors call for a more substantial explanation, one rooted in the very foundation of the cosmos itself-- deeply, in other words, in Mind.
The thought that good could not exist without evil is not a deep or complete enough explanation. For the contrast-factor is unneeded. One simply does not have to fall down before she realizes that she is being lifted into the air. One does not have to be celebate for years to enjoy an amazing sexual experience. One does not have nearly to die of thirst to appreciate a good drink, nor starve to appreciate delicious flavors. This is "extremist thinking," not valid explanation.
*******
Jehovah, Brahman, Adam, Eden, Dreamworld
Jehovah is a terrible illusion. It has been recycled, in so many minds, for so many years, that it might even have a certain m-reality as deeply as the collective Unconscious. But "he" is still illusion, a part of maya. By definition, he can influence the world-dream of a being, just as movies (unreal) can give real nightmares. But the m-world of the dream comes, ultimately, from four interactive sources: the personal unconscious, the deeper unconscious ("soul"), the collective Unconscious, and Coremind (Spirit or God).
Jehovah, being a stark and somewhat scary illusion, does not have the Power to alter your dreams, although you can change them in response to "him." But, since he is illusion, he has no part in creating the dreamworld of any creature.
Being only nonmystical m-reality, he has nothing to do with any r-reality.
Understandably, in view of our culture, you, almost subconsciously, couple Jehovah with Brahman. But the difference between the two is gigantic. They are not even in the same mental galaxy, despite the fact that both are called "gods." for Brahman is true Mind, true Love, true God. But Jehovah is a fairy-tale, a wargod, created by primitive and barbarian peoples.
Since "Adam" is the conscious human mind, he can influnce his own dream, to a limited extent; but that dream cannot be influenced at all by Jehovah. Adam can, for example, do something stupid, or cause deliberate harm, and then, that act is recorded by a part of his Unconscious called the "Observer" (or, "Watcher"). It is as if we are all tape-recorders, to use a simplism: As we live this life, we are in the "record" mode. But, in our next life, we will be in the "playback" mode; so everything that we did deliberately to others will be "played back" as karma. (Of course, the complexities of Mind are never this simple; but it does illustrate how karma-seeds are planted in Mind, and how they "replay" so precisely.
I wrote, "And Jehovah is a part of the dream of the m-world, and so couldnot possibly be a creator of even that."
Jehovah is an image within the dream of Brahman. Adam is also an image within Brahman's dream. (Adam is our human nature.) So, although this might look like two dreams, it is only one. For, in one and the same dreamexperience, Brahman dreams up bothJehovah and Adam. However, your note still represents truth, for Brahman has dreamed up Jehovah through Adam. Can we separate "Adam's dream" from Brahman's? Not completely, for, although it contains some unique contents for each dreaming being, the Adamdream is a subset of the Brahmandream. As Adamind is a part of Godmind, so this also must follow. Brahman is a great shared "pool" of Mind; as we dream our personal dreams, we all come to that pool with individual cups, and draw water for personal drinking.
I wrote, of Jehovah, "He was a myth created by angry generals and frightened kings who did not have the spiritual sense that God gave a gnat!:)"
You are making a logical assumption, again, that Jehovah is somehow the source of the dream. He is not. If you dream of a bad little girl, you cannot reasonably "blame her" for your dream. she is but an image in your dream. So, Jehovah, again, has nothing to do with the creation of the dream's content. A perfect dream is created by Brahman; it is given as a gift to the human soul. But that soul pollutes its pure waters with the pollution of karma. that is why our worlds, created by perfect Mind, are so "imperfect."
The entire Edenic account is the story of the dream. It is regarded by all but the most fundy to be an allegory. By the time that Genesis starts, Adam was already dreaming. But he was not fully "asleep" to higher spiritual realities. Illusion, in the form of Jehovah, dulled his mind, drove it into illusion. So, this "sleep" is a viable symbol, but it is not the symbol of dreaming only. It also symbolizes dulled or truncated awareness: Adam was put to sleep, and then, human nature split into yin and yang: Female was created from male. This is yet another symbol of a deper duality. when he later ate of the "tree of good and evil," he projected that illusory duality onto the world.
That was when both (all of human nature) were cast out of the garden of pleasure ("Eden"). That was when "thorns and thistles" appeared, the couple was cursed, and a lifetime of brutal hard work was predicted as their fate.
Brahman dreamed up the ancient world, with all its generals and other miscellaneous messes. They then created Jehovah, not in their dream (he was not a reality, or even an m-image, unless you believe in the historicity of the Hebrew Scriptures). Jehovah was a much simpler phenomenon: He was sheer imagination. By that standard, he was not an m-reality, but an m-mind-image only.
I write, of Jehovah, "He is nothing at all like the One, not even comparable. Or, perhaps he could be vaguely comparable, but it would be as a bacterium to an elephant.
Jehovah, being a stark and somewhat scary illusion, does not have the Power to alter your dreams, although you can change them in response to "him." But, since he is illusion, he has no part in creating the dreamworld of any creature.
Being only nonmystical m-reality, he has nothing to do with any r-reality.
Understandably, in view of our culture, you, almost subconsciously, couple Jehovah with Brahman. But the difference between the two is gigantic. They are not even in the same mental galaxy, despite the fact that both are called "gods." for Brahman is true Mind, true Love, true God. But Jehovah is a fairy-tale, a wargod, created by primitive and barbarian peoples.
Since "Adam" is the conscious human mind, he can influnce his own dream, to a limited extent; but that dream cannot be influenced at all by Jehovah. Adam can, for example, do something stupid, or cause deliberate harm, and then, that act is recorded by a part of his Unconscious called the "Observer" (or, "Watcher"). It is as if we are all tape-recorders, to use a simplism: As we live this life, we are in the "record" mode. But, in our next life, we will be in the "playback" mode; so everything that we did deliberately to others will be "played back" as karma. (Of course, the complexities of Mind are never this simple; but it does illustrate how karma-seeds are planted in Mind, and how they "replay" so precisely.
I wrote, "And Jehovah is a part of the dream of the m-world, and so couldnot possibly be a creator of even that."
Jehovah is an image within the dream of Brahman. Adam is also an image within Brahman's dream. (Adam is our human nature.) So, although this might look like two dreams, it is only one. For, in one and the same dreamexperience, Brahman dreams up bothJehovah and Adam. However, your note still represents truth, for Brahman has dreamed up Jehovah through Adam. Can we separate "Adam's dream" from Brahman's? Not completely, for, although it contains some unique contents for each dreaming being, the Adamdream is a subset of the Brahmandream. As Adamind is a part of Godmind, so this also must follow. Brahman is a great shared "pool" of Mind; as we dream our personal dreams, we all come to that pool with individual cups, and draw water for personal drinking.
I wrote, of Jehovah, "He was a myth created by angry generals and frightened kings who did not have the spiritual sense that God gave a gnat!:)"
You are making a logical assumption, again, that Jehovah is somehow the source of the dream. He is not. If you dream of a bad little girl, you cannot reasonably "blame her" for your dream. she is but an image in your dream. So, Jehovah, again, has nothing to do with the creation of the dream's content. A perfect dream is created by Brahman; it is given as a gift to the human soul. But that soul pollutes its pure waters with the pollution of karma. that is why our worlds, created by perfect Mind, are so "imperfect."
The entire Edenic account is the story of the dream. It is regarded by all but the most fundy to be an allegory. By the time that Genesis starts, Adam was already dreaming. But he was not fully "asleep" to higher spiritual realities. Illusion, in the form of Jehovah, dulled his mind, drove it into illusion. So, this "sleep" is a viable symbol, but it is not the symbol of dreaming only. It also symbolizes dulled or truncated awareness: Adam was put to sleep, and then, human nature split into yin and yang: Female was created from male. This is yet another symbol of a deper duality. when he later ate of the "tree of good and evil," he projected that illusory duality onto the world.
That was when both (all of human nature) were cast out of the garden of pleasure ("Eden"). That was when "thorns and thistles" appeared, the couple was cursed, and a lifetime of brutal hard work was predicted as their fate.
Brahman dreamed up the ancient world, with all its generals and other miscellaneous messes. They then created Jehovah, not in their dream (he was not a reality, or even an m-image, unless you believe in the historicity of the Hebrew Scriptures). Jehovah was a much simpler phenomenon: He was sheer imagination. By that standard, he was not an m-reality, but an m-mind-image only.
I write, of Jehovah, "He is nothing at all like the One, not even comparable. Or, perhaps he could be vaguely comparable, but it would be as a bacterium to an elephant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)